Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Cannock Urban District Council Bill Walsall Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 5th August, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Ex-POLICEMEN.

Captain LOSE BY: 1.
asked the Pensions Minister if ex-policemen who joined the Army during the late War who were in return for past services in receipt of pensions, and who were subsequently wounded and became entitled to wound pensions, are under existing rules deprived of the police pension they had previously earned; and if he will consider the advisability of initiating legislation for the purpose of removing this anomaly?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The answer to the first part is in the negative. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

TRAVELLING VOUCHERS.

Colonel ASHLEY: 2.
asked the Pensions Minister, in view of the fact that the question has been under consideration for some months, whether he is now in a position to announce that half-fare vouchers will be issued to discharged men undergoing treatment to enable them to return home on leave?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I would re-
mind the hon. Member that, subject to the conditions laid down in the Instructions issued by the Ministry, men undergoing treatment away from home can be given a free railway ticket once every six month to enable them to visit their homes. The question of giving additional facilities for means of half-fare vouchers is being considered as part of the general question of travelling concessions for men of His Majesty's forces, and I cannot yet announce a decision.

Colonel ASHLEY: Do I understand that the travelling concessions for ex-Service men are being considered at the same time as concessions for serving men?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, that is so.

TEMPORARY OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY).

Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: 3.
asked the Pensions Minister whether, under the recent Royal Warrant, the retired pay for temporary officers who have been invalided out of the Army with disability equal to the loss of a limb and placed on half-pay, has been increased to meet the higher cost of living?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There has been no Royal Warrant of recent date relating to the disability retired pay of officers. The matter referred to in this question is under the consideration of the Select Committee, the present position being that a bonus of 20 per cent. is added to the retired pay to meet the higher cost of living.

PARENTS' PENSIONS

Colonel ASHLEY: 5.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he will reconsider his decision that parents' pensions based on dependence, although no separation allowance was issued while the soldier was serving, shall be paid from the date of application only and not from the date of death, in view of the fact that the onus of awarding such pensions without application should rest on the Government, as no intimation was issued to parents at the time of the soldier's death that a claim could be made, and that the Ministry of Pensions publicity campaign advertising parents' pensions did not commence until several years after the outbreak of war, the result being that in a large number of cases, through ignorance of the regulations, parents made no application for a considerable time after the soldier's death and have been greatly penalized?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I regret that I am unable to reconsider the decision that parents' pensions which depend upon application can only be awarded as from the date on which the application is made.

DISABLEMENT (FORMER WARS).

Mr. HODGE: 7.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he will give any indication as to when the pensions for disablement of those disabled by former wars will be raised to the standard contained in the Royal Warrant of the Great War?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The rates of pension for men disabled by former wars have already been raised to the level of pensions of the Great War, as I announced in July last, and a considerable number of those increased pensions are now in payment. A former war pension can only be increased on application, which should be made to the Awards Branch at Chelsea.

Mr. HODGE: Does that include the allowance for a wife the same as for soldiers and sailors in the late War?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think not, but I will let my right hon. Friend know definitely.

Mr. HODGE: If it is not the case will the right hon. Gentleman see that the conditions are made similar in that respect as for the soldiers in the late War?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will consider that.

YACHT PATROL (WAR GRATUITY).

Mr. GWYNNE: 96.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty why men who formed the yacht patrol have been refused the war gratuity; and whether, in view of the consequent dissatisfaction among the men concerned, he can see his way to include them in the award?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Tyson Wilson) on the 30th July last. I will send my hon. Friend a copy, The position is still the same.

Mr. GWYNNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the position of these men will be?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The position is this. In one way and another these men get something approaching the consideration which Mercantile Marine Ratings get. These latter do not get the war gratuity, because they are paid more than naval ratings. Therefore, the men under consideration do not get the War gratuity.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

NATIONAL LOAN.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the declared objects of the Irish National Loan are the promoting of direct trade to and from Ireland, the development of fisheries, agriculture, afforestation and industries, and the establishment of a land bank in Ireland, he proposes to continue instituting criminal proceedings against all persons soliciting subscriptions to this loan?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): The objects of the loan, as stated in the question, are not. accurately presented. The Loan prospectus provides that interest on the Loan will not be payable until six months after the Irish Republic has received International Recognition and the English have evacuated Ireland. The prospectus further states that the proceeds will be used for propagating the Irish case all Over the World, for establishing in Foreign Countries Consular Services to promote Irish Trade and Commerce, for fostering Irish industries, and, generally, for National Purposes as directed by Dail Eireann.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, as to whether he proposes to continue instituting criminal proceedings, and, if that is the case, does he propose to prosecute the Archbishop of Dublin for advocating this loan?

Mr. MACPHERSON: All that I can say is that His Majesty's Government is, determined not to allow any other Government to usurp their constitutional functions.

Mr. LYNN: May I ask whether it is the fact that the chief object of this loan is to carry out a murder campaign in Ireland?

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: Would it not be a good thing to allow some of
these individuals to collect this money, and then endeavour to collar it, and use it for useful purposes?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I will look into that question.

Mr. LYNN: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a company, styled the Reconstruction and Federation of Industries, Limited, entered into negotiations some months ago with several of the leading Irish municipalities with the object of negotiating a loan of £150,000,000 for building purposes in Ireland; whether he is aware that the company now charge the Government with delaying the negotiations; whether he can state if any negotiations have taken place between the company and the Government; what is the cause of the delay; and when may a decision be expected?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I have no detailed information of the negotiations between Irish municipalities and this company, nor am I aware that the Government are concerned with such negotiations.

Mr. LYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the company say that the reason for not lending money to these Irish municipalities is that the Government are holding them up?

Mr. BONAR LAW: If such a rumour is being circulated it has absolutely no foundation.

Mr. LYNN: May I assume, then, that this company is a South Sea Bubble?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I never heard of the company till I read the question of my hon. Friend.

ST. ANDREW'S NATIONAL SCHOOLS, BELFAST.

Mr. BURN: 9.
asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that St. Andrew's National School, Hope Street, Belfast, has consistently had a good record, and has earned a good Grant; that successive inspectors have reported favourably upon it and upon its accommodation, and that now, for the first time, a new inspector has found fault with its equipment; whether this adverse report endangers the Grant upon which this most useful school is depending; and what steps he proposes to take?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the school referred to has a satis-
factory record. My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in stating that now for the first time a new inspector has found fault with the equipment of the school. So far back as December, 1912, and again in March, 1918, the then inspector called attention to this matter. In August of the present year the matter was again brought under his notice, and he was informed that, unless the necessary desks were supplied before 31st December, 1919, the question of the continuance of Grants to the school must be considered, under the terms of Rule 178 of the Code, which prescribes that, to warrant continuance of Grants to any school, the schoolhouse must be properly furnished.

Mr. MOLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in respect of the previous complaint, the requisition was then complied with; and is he also aware that the failure to provide additional equipment now is due to the fact that school authorities are holding their hand awaiting the Education Bill?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I was not aware of those facts. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I am speaking as the mouthpiece of the Education Department. I will have those facts brought to their notice, and see what I can do.

Mr. MOLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman in the meantime undertake, if the defect is due largely to inaction on the part of the Government, to see that this school is not subjected to any penalty?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I will convey those facts to the authorities.

SOUTH KILDARE (DRESSED MEAT).

Brigadier-General CROFT: 10.
asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the attempt of the South Kildare farmers to organise and equip an abattoir and dressed meat business; whether the Department of Agriculture have refused to issue a licence; and, if so, what is the reason for this refusal?

Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. and gallant Friend presumably refers to the Athy Dressed Meat Society. No licence from the Department is necessary to engage in the dressed meat business, but under an Order of the Food Controller meat can be exported to Great Britain only with a permit granted by the Department, and of late the quantity of meat to be accepted in Great Britain has
been strictly limited, while this limitation exists an additional export to that now authorised will not be accepted at British ports. As soon as this limitation is relaxed, and in the event of the control of meat export continuing, the Department will grant the society the necessary permit for export and make arrangements for the inspection of the meat.

Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask will the Government do away with this control of the export of meat from Ireland to Great Britain?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The whole question is now being considered.

POLICE FORCES (OLD PENSIONERS).

Major O'NEILL: 11.
asked the Chief Secretary if he can now make any statement as to his negotiation with the Treasury in connection with increasing the pensions of retired members of the police forces in Ireland?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret that I am not in a position to make any statement, but I hope shortly to be able to do so.

Captain REDMOND: Would it not be only fair to place these retired policemen in the same position to-day as if there had been no depreciation in the sovereign and as if there had been no rise in the cost of living. That is all they are asking?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I promised the House I would make representations to the Treasury. I have made a suggestion to the Treasury, and I understand it is now receiving consideration. I cannot say more at present, but if a question is put down next week I hope to be in a position to reply.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the Government consider the whole question of old pensioners?

Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir; the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary ex-pensioners is entirely different from that of any other pensioners.

EDUCATION BILL.

Major O'NEILL: 12.
asked the Chief Secretary if he can say what will be the sum of money contributable from Imperial funds to education in Ireland in the financial year 1920–21, assuming that the Education (Ireland) Bill passes into law in its
present form and that the Imperial Grant for education in Great Britain in 1920–21 is the same as the amount estimated or payable in respect of the financial year now current; and, acting on the above assumption, can he say by how much the Irish Grant for 1920–21 will exceed the amount estimated or payable in the current year?

Mr. MACPHERSON: On the hon. and gallant Member's hypothesis, and excluding cost of administration and of other services referred to in the Bill, it is estimated that the equivalent Grant for Education in Ireland for the financial year 1920–21 would amount to £3,533,542. Making the necessary adjustments, this grant will exceed the estimated amount payable in respect of the corresponding services under present conditions for the current year by £301,910.

Mr. MOLES: 14.
asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Education Bill is to be submitted for Second Reading before the Recess; whether its financial provisions will be based upon the recommendations of the recent Killanin Report; whether he is aware that the Killanin Report recommendations are practically identical with the Craik financial proposals in the Scottish Education Bill, and that the Craik scale of salaries has now had to be amended; whether, in view of this, he will see that the new salaries scale of the Irish Bill will be based upon the revised Scottish proposals; and whether, in the event of the Irish Bill becoming law early in 1920, the increases will be proposed to be retrospective as from 1st January, 1920?

Mr. MACPHERSON: With regard to the first part of the question, I am not in a position to make any definite statement, but I believe the Leader of the House will make a statement at the end of Questions to-day. The financial provisions of the Bill itself follow generally the line of the Scottish Education Act of 1918. As regards the question of National School teachers' salaries it is hoped that, under the Bill, funds will be available to enable a scale of salaries to be introduced which will be considerably better than that recommended by the Killanin Committee, and which will compare not unfavourably with the revised Scottish scale. It is also hoped that under the provisions of the Bill to make the new scale of salaries operative as from the 1st April, 1919.

Captain REDMOND: Arising out of the first portion of the question, may I ask how he proposes to reconcile the policy of introducing a Bill to co-ordinate and centralise education in Ireland, and at the same time, and almost in the same breath, introducing a Bill to divide the country into two parts?

Mr. MACPHERSON: That is a question of policy, which my hon. Friend will, of course, put to the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister.

Captain REDMOND: Has the right hon. Gentleman nothing to do with the Irish policy of the Government?

Mr. MACPHERSON: A great deal.

Captain REDMOND: Then why cannot he answer?

POLITICAL OFFENCES (IMPRISONMENT).

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 13.
asked the Chief Secretary how many persons are at present imprisoned in Ireland for political offences; and how many, if any, of these are hunger-striking?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The number of persons at present imprisoned in Ireland who in the popular phrase are "political prisoners," is 151. There is no prisoner at present on hunger strike.

Captain REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many people altogether are in prison in Ireland?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say, but if the hon. Member will put down a question I will give him an answer.

Mr. KELLY: May I ask if the Attorney-General assented to the proposition that it is legal for the Government to stand by and permit hunger-strikers to starve themselves to death?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put the question to the Attorney-General.

POLITICAL PRISONERS.

Mr. HOGGE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government, before introducing the Home Rule Bill, to release all Irish political prisoners and to withdraw the proclamations under the Crimes Act?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Captain REDMOND: May I ask whether this is a new idea on the part of the Government to enforce conciliation by coercion?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No. It is not an entirely new idea on the part of some people in Ireland to make it necessary.

Mr. HOGGE: Does my right hon. Friend not think, if the Government and the House are really in earnest in trying to reach an Irish settlement, that it is very desirable to clear the ground by means of this kind of concession?

Mr. MOLES: Before my right hon. Friend answers that question, would he also tell us whether he thinks it would not be desirable, if it is wished to have the ground cleared, that there should be a discontinuance of the programme of murder and outrage?

Captain REDMOND: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, would it not be a good idea to clear away the originators of the policy of direct action in Ireland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The most direct action at the present moment is murder. I should be very glad if the originators could be cleared out.

Brigadier-General CROFT: May I ask whether—

Mr. SPEAKER: The House is rattle, anticipating the Debate on the Home Rule Bill.

MILITARY RULE (SUSPENSION).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 73.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the military rule in Ireland which has suppressed the freedom of the Press, the right of personal liberty, and trial by jury has driven disaffection underground, which disaffection in turn finds an outlet in crime, he will, in order to give the proposals of the Government for the self-government of Ireland a better chance of acceptance, immediately suspend this form of government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: If, as I presume is the case, the question suggests that the Government should cease to adopt the means which they consider necessary to enforce order and preserve human life, the answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATY.

SERBIA.

Mr. SIMM: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have received any information that the Government of Serbia have begun the deportation of Montenegrin citizens, and are interning them in special places in Serbia, Bosnia, and particularly at Sarajevo; and, if so, whether this is contrary to arrangements made by the Peace Conference?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer is in the negative.

Sir J. D. REES: What affair is it of ours if the Serbian Government have begun the deportation of Montenegrin citizens?

ALBANIA.

Mr. A. HERBERT: 16.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the case of Albania is likely to come before the Peace Conference?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I must refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to his question yesterday.

RATIFICATION OF TREATY.

Mr. HOGGE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state when the Treaty of Peace with Germany will be ratified?

Mr. A. T. DAVIES: 76.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is in a position to say when the Peace Treaty between Germany and the Allies will be fully ratified; and if he can explain the reasons for the delay?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Negotiations are in progress between the Allied Governments and the German Government as to the formal exchange of ratifications, and a Note was presented to the German Peace Delegation on 8th December warning them that the Allies desire the final deposit of ratifications to be made without further delay.

Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks, or anticipates, those will be complied with before we rise for the Recess?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is rather rash, I think, to prophesy, but I strongly hope

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTHERS' PENSIONS.

Mr. RAPER: 18.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that there is a widespread demand throughout the country that mothers' pensions should be paid to necessitous widows with children; and whether, in view of the general support which this question has received in this House, it is proposed to take steps to introduce legislation to this effect?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I recognise fully the importance of this matter, but under existing circumstances I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar question asked by him on the 13th November, and to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for South Tottenham on the 5th November. The cost, even on the lowest estimate, would be very great indeed.

Mr. RAPER: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman state when the Government will come to a decision?

Dr. ADDISON: I cannot make a statement on that point. It is a very complicated question.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are at the present moment widows of sailors and of men who built ships for this country living on 9s. 6d. a week, and having children to keep, and does he consider that a satisfactory state of affairs?

Dr. ADDISON: No, I do not, and I am not aware of the fact.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HOSPITALS.

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 19.
asked the Minister of Health whether His Majest'y's Government intend to take over the maintenance and administration of public hospitals; and whether, in the event of their doing so, cottage hospitals will be excluded?

Dr. ADDISON: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL LEAGUE OF THE BLIND.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: 20.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the recent activities of the National League of the Blind and the dissatisfaction existing with
regard to the present Grand-in-Aid of the blind; whether he has received resolutions requesting early legislation on behalf of the blind; and what the proposals of His Majesty's Government are in the matter?

Dr. ADDISON: I am aware of the activities of the National League of the Blind referred to and have received numerous resolutions as stated. As previously indicated to the House, the Government intend, at an early date, to introduce legislation which will, amongst other things, include provisions for the amelioration of the condition of the blind; and I am in consultation with the Advisory Committee on the Welfare of the Blind, on which are representatives of the National League of the Blind, with regard to such provisions.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Can he say that this legislation will be introduced at an early date next Session?

Dr. ADDISON: I hope so.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

LAND VALUATION.

Mr. LANE-FOX: 21.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in many cases the housing schemes of local authorities are held up by the delay in securing the opinion of the district land valuer in disputed questions of the price to be paid for land; and whether he can expedite the decisions of the valuers, and so remove this cause of delay?

Dr. ADDISON: I am satisfied that there is little delay in actual valuation. Where delay occurs it is usually in connection with negotiations where I am advised that the price asked is excessive. In such cases I think that, with a view to expedition, greater use should be made of the compulsory powers which local authorities possess, and I am urging this course upon them.

Mr. LANE-FOX: May I ask whether, in certain cases where delay does occur for want of a definite opinion, he will consider the appointment of specially-qualified men outside the Government staff, without increasing the Government staff, to make valuations?

Dr. ADDISON: I do not understand how I could appoint additional men
without increasing the staff, but perhaps my hon. Friend will give me any cases he knows of? I do not know of any.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: Would it not be easy to take on a number of temporary men for a few months?

Dr. ADDISON: We do; we have a large number of temporary men taken on. If my hon. Friend knows of any cases where the figures are held up because of the absence of a valuer's opinion, I will have the matter dealt with at once.

Mr. LANE-FOX: I will send the right hon. Gentleman particulars.

BUILDING SUBSIDIES.

Mr. DOYLE: 23.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the urgent need for the increase of population, now and for the future, he is aware that, by limiting the bonus to builders of houses of four bedrooms, he is unconsciously forcing the limitation of families upon considerable sections of the people?

Dr. ADDISON: No, Sir; I am advised that the principal need at the present time is for houses with not more than four bedrooms.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SCHEMES).

Mr. BRIANT: 82.
asked the Minister of Health if the housing scheme submitted to his Department by local authorities state the actual number of houses to be erected on the suggested sites; and, if so, what is the number?

Dr. ADDISON: Complete information is not yet available as to the actual number of houses proposed to be erected under local authorities' housing schemes, but the site plans submitted comprise, approximately, 57,000 acres, which will be Sufficient for at least 570,000 houses.

ACCOMMODATION, MOSS SIDE, MANCHESTER.

Major HURST: 83.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in the Moss Side district of Manchester accommodation in the foreign quarter on the north side of the city is offered as alternative accommodation within the meaning of the Rent Restriction Acts for tenants whose ejectment from houses in Moss Side is sought by landlords; and whether he will supplement the placard which the Ministry of Health is about to circulate in Manchester and Salford by an explanation of the meaning of alternative accommodation?

Dr. ADDISON: I have no information as to the first part of the question. It is for the Court to whom application is made for an ejectment order to decide, according to the circumstances of the particular case, what should be regarded as alternative accommodation for the purposes of the Acts.

Major HURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a certain type of speculator is buying up houses in the better suburbs, and at the same time is buying up inferior houses in the foreign quarter of Manchester into which they endeavour to get the tenants from the better houses in order to get a profit out of the better houses?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, I am aware of the circumstances in that district.

MARGAM AREA SCHEME.

Mr. JOHN DAVISON: 85.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the housing scheme within the Margam area provides for 5 per cent, of the houses having only one room downstairs and two upstairs; whether this scheme was put forward on instructions issued by his Department; whether he is aware that the scheme is being strongly criticised on the ground that even a working-class family is entitled to a room to which the members may retire from domestic activities; and whether he will take steps to have the scheme reconsidered?

Dr. ADDISON: Two out of forty houses included in the scheme of the Margam Urban District Council are planned with two instead of three bedrooms, in response to a local demand for houses of this type. With this exception, there is no difference between these houses and the approved three-bedroom type, and they have all the necessary and desirable amenities.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: Does that mean that they have more than one room downstairs?

Dr. ADDISON: If there are no houses with less than two they must have more than one.

ADMIRALTY BARRACKS, BLYTH.

Mr. CAIRNS: 97.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the Admiralty Barracks, Blyth, Northumberland, are now vacant; and, if so, will he make arrangements for the Blyth Urban
Council to purchase them, to be used as tenements, owing to the fact that the area is 2,000 houses short?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The disposal of this property has been placed in the hands of the Disposal Board, and the Admiralty have already informed the Blyth Urban District Council that they should communicate with that board with regard to their desire to purchase the buildings in question.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW OFFICERS (SUPER ANNUATION).

Mr. BRIANT: 24.
asked the Minister of Health if he has any information as to ex-Poor Law servants who are superannuated having to apply for outdoor relief owing to the inadequacy of their pensions; whether he is aware that under the present system the lowest-paid officers, who have consequently least opportunity of saving, are receiving very meagre pensions; and whether he is prepared to make additional provision for those cases where hardship can be proved so as to prevent the necessity of their applying for relief?

Dr. ADDISON: I am afraid it is a fact that the pensions of superannuated Poor Law officers are in certain cases very small, but I have definite information of only one case of an ex-Poor Law officer in receipt of relief. I regret that there is no authority to supplement the pension in such cases out of public funds.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISABLED WOMEN (WAR SERVICE).

Captain LOSEBY: 26.
asked the Prime Minister if he is yet in the position to give the House any information in regard to any contemplated action on the part of the Government in regard to women disabled during the War?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that the hope expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week has not been realised, and that the consideration of this question by the Departments concerned is not yet complete. I hope, however, that an announcement will be made before the Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

Mr. LUNN: 27.
asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement as to the present condition in Egypt and as to the policy of His Majesty's Government in dealing with that country?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that at present I could usefully add anything to the very full and explicit statement of the Secretary of State House of Lords on 25th November, and. to the more recent answers to questions given in the House of Commons by the Under-Secretary of State.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this House not just as much entitled to a statement on foreign policy as the other House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it is asking too much of this House that it should read the statement of the Secretary of State when he happens to sit in another House.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to how the Milner Mission has been received in Cairo?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It was received without anything unpleasant.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADMIRALTY (FINANCIAL CONTROL).

Mr. ACLAND: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether action has yet been taken on the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee contained in paragraph 22 of their Second Report, that there should be an independent inquiry into the whole system of internal financial control at the Admiralty?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in communication with the First Lord of the Admiralty on the subject.

Mr. ACLAND: May I ask whether, although the Report was presented in July, it is only just now, for the first time, receiving consideration?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of that, but I think the First Lord dealt with that yesterday, and I cannot add anything to what he said.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS (PUBLIC RESTAURANTS).

Commander Viscount CURZON: 30.
asked the. Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that this is the first Peace Christmas, he will consider the advisability of allowing public restaurants to remain open for a longer period on Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Year's Eve, and New Year's Day?

Mr. BONARLAW: The Government is not prepared to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

SIBERIA (REVOLUTIONS).

Mr. SWAN: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether the recent revolutions against Admiral Koltchak at Vladivostok, Irkutsk, and other Siberian districts aimed at securing a peaceable agreement with the Russian Soviet Government and the establishment of a Siberian constituent assembly; and what was the attitude of the British representatives in Siberia towards these demands?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The aims referred to in the question were no doubt in the minds of some of the authors of these revolutions. His Majesty's representatives in Siberia did not interfere in any way with incidents that were entirely connected with the internal affairs of Siberia.

ANTI-JEWISH POGROMS.

Mr. SWAN: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information to the effect that from the 18th to 20th October, immediately after the evacuation of Kiev by the Bolsheviks, some Cossacks and a corps of the volunteer army perpetrated a pogrom on the Jews in that city, killing some hundreds of Jews in the suburb of Podol alone; and whether His Majesty's Government will instruct the special British mission to South Russia to Make a full inquiry into this and other reported pogroms?

Mr. BONAR LAW: A report has been received tending to corroborate the first part of the question. His Majesty's High Commissioner has been instructed to report fully on alleged pogroms in South Russia, and the British Military Mission has already received instructions to do all in its power to prevent such excesses.

BRITISH AND ALLIED POLICY.

Mr. TILLETT: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the malicious propaganda of enemy aliens misrepresenting British and Allied feeling towards Russia, he is prepared, after consultation with the Supreme Council of Allies, to declare a policy towards Russia?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite realise the evils referred to in the first part of the question, but I do not think it would be possible to add anything to the very clear statement of Government policy made by the Prime Minister on the 13th of November last.

GENERAL GOUGH'S REPORT.

Mr. HOGGE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will publish the Report of General Sir Hubert Gough on the situation in the Baltic States and North-Western Russia?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that it would be in the public interest to publish these or similar despatches.

Mr. HOGGE: Is it not a fact that this general (who did such valuable service elsewhere) has reported in an adverse sense on a great deal of the public criticism which we are asked to believe is true, and does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would inform public opinion if the evidence of this general were published, so that the public could draw their own conclusions?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Gentleman must not assume that I agree with his first statement, but I think the House will agree that it would be an impossible position if generals or other people sent by the Cabinet to get information were to have the private information given to us made public.

Mr. HOGGE: I quite agree, but, on the other hand, is my right hon. Friend not aware of the amount of information which has been given on both sides—because it is very difficult to get accurate information of any sort—has been such that the public has drawn false and wrong impressions, and when the Cabinet sends a distinguished general on a mission of this kind, will the right hon. Gentleman not give us the benefit of that precise information, so that we can form sane conclusions?

Mr. BONAR LAW: There has certainly been a great deal of erroneous informa-
tion, but what I said before must apply. It is quite impossible for despatches of that kind to be made public; but in debate, the general result of the information we have received was given to the House.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: In connection with the lack of information, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the publication of other Reports in continuance of the White Paper published a few months ago about the position in Russia?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I will consider that with the Foreign Secretary.

INTER-ALLIED CONFERENCE.

Mr. RAPER: 55.
asked the Prime-Minister when and where the inter-Allied, Conference on the Russian question will take place?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister of France and the Italian Foreign Minister are now in London, and the Russian problem will be among the subjects that will be discussed with them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether, after that discussion, a statement on this most important subject will be made to this House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: A statement certainly could not be made after this discussion. It is too much to expect that any definite or final conclusion should be reached after this visit?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

HOME-GROWN WHEAT.

Major HOWARD: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that millers are prohibited from giving more than 76s. 6d. per quarter for home-grown wheat while the Government are paying 90s. and upwards for overseas wheat; and whether, in view of the situation in which British farmers and smallholders are placed by these conditions and the danger of much arable land going out of cultivation, he will consider the desirability of discontinuing this provision, which amounts to a subsidy to the State of 15s. per quarter on the part of borne growers of wheat?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The arrangements made by the Wheat Commission are designed to carry out the undertaking given by the Government on the 19th November,
1918, that the price of home-grown wheat for 1919 should not be less than 71s. 11d. per quarter of 480 lbs., and I am not prepared to modify them.

RUSSIAN WHEAT.

Major GLYN: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether there are considerable supplies of wheat and other cereals available for export from the area of operations of the anti-Bolshevik forces in Southern Russia; whether the difficulty of securing these stocks is the chaotic condition of internal communication in that area; whether British ships sent. to load these cargoes were forced to come away empty through the indifferent organisation of transport; whether the existing condition of Central Europe demands special efforts being made to transport wheat from Russian Black Sea ports up the Danube; and whether the British transportation mission with. General Denikin's headquarters, have put forward any scheme for making use of this large surplus stock of wheat?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The facts are, I believe, generally as stated in the question, but I cannot add anything to the replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for the Springburn Division of Glasgow on the 19th November and yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRIES AND SECRETARIES BILL.

Mr. S ITCH: 35.
asked the Prime Minister the intention of the Government regarding the Ministries and Secretaries Bill which is awaiting Committee stage?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It will not be possible to take any further stages of this Bill during the present Session.

Captain W. BENN: Will it be included in the Resolution continuing Bills over to next Session?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will wait till we introduce the Resolution.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have abandoned the policy with reference to coal mines announced by him on 18th August?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have nothing to add on this subject to the statements already made.

SUPPLIES (REGULATION).

Mr. GWYNNE: 98.
asked the President of the. Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in certain cases coal merchants are able to obtain supplies of coal which they require for industrial purposes, but cannot get supplies which they state are for domestic purposes, owing to the fact that coal for industrial purposes fetches a higher price; and how he proposes to remedy this defect in the system of regulation of coal supplies?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): Collieries have been instructed to maintain full supplies of coal for domestic and household purposes, and arrangements have been made for making financial advances to collieries where necessary. In view of the measures already taken, it is anticipated that the difficulties to which the lion. Member refers will not arise, but the situation is being carefully watched.

INDUSTRIAL AND DOMESTIC CONSUMERS.

Mr. GWYNNE: 99.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent reduction in the price of domestic coal, he will issue instructions for the guidance of coal merchants to enable them to distinguish between industrial consumers and domestic consumers for the purpose of making their charges; and how he proposes the difficulty shall be met where part of a coal supply is used for domestic purposes and part for business purposes, which situation arises in the case of a baker who resides on the premises in which he bakes his bread?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: In the Coal (Pit's Mouth) Prices Order and Direction, 1919, and the Wholesale Coal Prices Order, 1919, both of which have been circulated to merchants, coal for domestic or household purposes is defined as coal bought or sold for the purpose of supplying consumers under the provisions of the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1919. As consumers under these provisions are registered persons, there should be no difficulty in distinguishing between industrial consumers and domestic consumers for the purposes of the Order which gives effect to the reduction in price.

Mr. GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question and say if a baker can get coal at domestic rates for baking?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Clause 1 (b) of the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1919, applies, namely: "Coal used for all purposes in a dwelling-house or in a building adjacent to or connected with a dwelling-house and occupied or used as part thereof."

EXPORTS.

Mr. LANE-FOX: 101.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the remunerative export trade in coal has been limited by the Coal Controller almost entirely to the collieries of Northumberland, Durham, Lancashire, Cumberland, and South Wales, leaving the now far less remunerative home trade to the collieries of the West Riding of Yorkshire and the Midlands; and how the inequality in profit is to be adjusted in fairness to the collieries of the West Riding and the Midlands?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The export trade in coal is restricted almost entirely to the South Wales, Durham, Northumberland, and Scottish coalfields, though a small quantity of slack is released for export from Yorkshire. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the provisions of the Coal Industry (Emergency) Bill.

WEST NORFOLK (SHORTAGE OF SUPPLIES).

Mr. JODRELL: 103.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the serious shortage of coal for household purposes in West Norfolk generally, and especially in the villages of Snettisham, Creake, and Rudham; and if steps will be taken to alleviate the distress of the inhabitants without delay?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware of the shortage of supplies of household coal in the districts mentioned, which is due to railway transport difficulties. Emergency issues of coal have been arranged to relieve the immediate shortage, and the railway transport difficulty is in hand with the Ministry of Transport.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Council of the League of Nations will meet within fifteen days of the coming into
force of the Treaty of Peace with Germany for the purpose of appointing three members of the Commission for the Saar Basin in terms of Article 48 at the Treaty?

Mr. BONAR LAW: In order to carry out Article 48 of the Treaty, to which the hon. Member refers, it will be necessary for a meeting of the Council of the League of Nations to take place within the period of fifteen days.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN (TRAINING).

Captain LOSEBY: 39.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that there is general dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which the matter of the training of disabled officers and men is being administered; and if he will consider the advisability of bringing under the control of one single Ministry all questions relating to this question?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Ministry of Labour has already a general responsibility for the training of all disabled ex-Service men who are fit to be absorbed in employment, although the responsibility for the administration of certain sorts of training is necessarily devolved upon Departments which possess special technical qualifications.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL EUROPE (RELIEF MEASURES).

Dr. MURRAY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether any arrangement has yet been made with the Government of the United States for the relief of Central Europe?

Mr. BONAR LAW: His Majesty's Government are discussing the question with the United States Government. No arrangement as yet been made.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there is food available for Austria at Trieste; whether wagons which were sent from Austria for its transport have been detained; and whether he can say how much of this food has actually reached Austria?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirma-
tive. As regards the second part, I may say that the difficulties which have arisen are concerned primarily with the method of payment to Italy and the shipment of equivalent supplies to Italy. Everything possible is being done to remove the difficulties. Six thousand seven hundred tons of grain have actually been dispatched, and have probably by now reached Vienna.

Lieut. -Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand from that answer that this food has been held up simply on a question of method of payment for it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid that is so, and it is not an uncommon experience in human affairs.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: It is very unfortunate.

Mr. RAPER: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of taking the initiative in calling a council of all European nations to deal energetically and promptly with the Central European famine area, with the object of preventing a catastrophe which will react on every country in Europe?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The representatives of the European nations are in daily touch on this subject in Paris, and the matter, as I have often informed the House, is receiving our constant and anxious attention. I do not think that an attempt to summon a special council to deal with the subject at the present time would improve the prospects of a solution.

Captain W. BENN: Are the methods of payment standing in the way of the relief of these famine-stricken areas?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course, my hon. and gallant Friend knows that is one of the difficulties, and that is the reason why we have been compelled to say that nothing can be done now without the assistance of the United States.

Mr. RAPER: Cannot at least steps be taken to prevent the patient from dying while the doctors disagree?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said that our Government and, I think, the Allied Governments, realise the necessity of doing everything in their power, but my hon. Friend must see there is a limit to what can be done out of our resources.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: 57.
asked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken by the Allied and Associated Gov-
ernments to avert an economic collapse in Austria and certain of the surrounding States?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Allies have to consider this question from two aspects:

(1) The provision of immediate relief.
(2) The economic reconstruction of the countries in question.

As to the first aspect, the resources of the Allies are limited, but everything possible is being done by direct supply of food, by organisation of railway transport, and by using the influence of the Allies to stimulate commercial exchanges between the new States. The second aspect is more difficult, and everything depends upon the possibility of organising international financial assistance on a large scale. This must in turn depend upon the assistance of the United States of America, and the question is being discussed with the United States Government.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how long it will be before actual starvation takes place in large tracts of Bohemia?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir, I cannot; but I am afraid, as is the Noble Lord, that there is a real danger.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: May there not be an economic explosion at any time in the near future?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said, in answer to other questions, that we fully realise the position, but does my hon. and gallant Friend suggest that this House, this Government, this country, is to undertake to supply all who need?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it possible to summon a special conference of the responsible statesmen of the smaller nationalities surrounding Austria with a view to economic exchange and the sale of goods?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir; the answer I read a moment ago states that by our wish, and that of our Allies, we are doing everything in our power to secure that.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Is not the isolation of Russia one of the dominant factors in the situation?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course, but I have not yet heard of any satisfactory suggestion for putting an end to it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Make peace!

Lord R. CECIL: asked whether the Government will communicate to the House, by laying Papers or otherwise, information as to the economic situation in any of the countries of Central Europe?

Mr. BONAR LAW: His Majesty's Government consider that it would be desirable that the House and the country should have the fullest information on this subject. Papers are being prepared, and will be laid as soon as possible.

Lord R. CECIL: 71.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the recent statements of Sir William Goode as to the terrible situation in Vienna; whether the Government have any official information on this point; and, if so, does it confirm the statements of Sir William Goode?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The reply to all parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Lord HUGH CECIL: 72.
asked the Prime Minister whether the profits that are being made out of the export of coal partly arise from the high price of coal on the Continent of Europe; and whether it is intended to make any contribution to the relief of the distress now prevailing in parts of Central Europe out of these profits?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The coal exported is sold at the market price, and there seems, therefore, to be no reason why any profits derived from its sale should not be used to help British taxpayers.

Lord R. CECIL: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the very grave coal position in some parts of Central Europe, and does he think it really is in consonance with the best traditions of this country that those who are comparatively well-off should be battening on the sufferings of others?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I really do not agree with what my Noble Friend has said.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not a fact that the profits derived from the high prices of coal are being paid by quite other nations and people than those suffering from the coal shortage in Central Europe?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The great bulk does not affect the countries to which my Noble Friend refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADRIATIC (SIGNOR D'ANNUNZIO).

Mr. HOGGE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to deal with the military operations of Gabriel D'Annunzio in the Adriatic?

Mr. RAPER: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Supreme War Council is taking any steps to put an end to the condition of affairs in the Adriatic, consequent on Signor D'Annunzio's raids, the continuance of which constitutes a grave menace to peace in South-Eastern Europe?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The question is at the present moment engaging the attention both of the Italian Government and the Allied Powers. I am unable to make any further statement about it.

Mr. RAPER: Is it not a fact that this Fiume question could be immediately settled by handing it over to our Italian Allies?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It could be settled so far as Italy is concerned.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give hope of an early settlement?

Oral Answers to Questions — STANDING ORDERS (CARRYING OVER BILLS).

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to ask the House to alter generally the Standing Orders of the. House with regard to the carrying over of Bills from this to the next Session, or only in respect of certain individual specified Bills?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not proposed to suggest a general alteration, and the Bills which the House will be invited to carry over will be specified.

Colonel GRETTON: 75.
asked on which day he intends to submit the proposal to carry over Bills from this Session to the next?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not yet in a position to name a day.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY (PEACE TREATY).

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 52.
asked the Prime Minister when and where it is proposed to resume discussions in respect of
the Treaty of Peace with Turkey; whether the weekly cost to the British taxpayer in connection with our present duties and responsibilities in different parts of the Ottoman Empire amounts to over £2,000,000 sterling; and whether, if the cause of the delay in negotiating the Peace with Turkey is due to Allied and Associated Powers rather than to the inaction of the British Government the Allied and Associated Powers will pay the bill now being borne by this country?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As I have already stated, this question is under discussion between the Allied Governments. I must ask for longer notice of the second part of the question. The third part raises hypothetical issues, upon which it would be premature at present to pronounce.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSULAR REFORMS.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will cause to be laid upon the Table of the House the evidence given before the Cave Committee on Consular Reforms?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the answer given to a similar question by the Member for St. Rollox on 29th October last.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to reconsider this question?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; I stated very definitely what was the position of the Government; I have heard of no argument to make us alter it.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.

Major GLYN: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether it has been decided if the Ministry of Munitions is to be continued after the present War aftermath has been cleared up as a Ministry of Supply; whether any Government Department has since the 31st of March of this year delegated any functions for contracting, etc., to the Ministry of Munitions; and whether it is intended to return to the pre-war practice that those Ministries and Departments who require materials, stores, etc., and are responsible, for their employment should also be responsible for their purchase and efficiency on delivery?

Mr. BONAR LAW: This subject, which requires a very careful examination, is being considered, but no decision has yet been taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider such an Amendment of the standing Orders of this House as will enable Mr. SPEAKER, on any day, except Friday, when, at 3.30 of the clock, more than thirty Questions remain upon the Paper unanswered, to select from among such questions those which, in his opinion, are of public importance or of general interest, and to call upon Members in whose names such questions stand to put them forthwith, instead of as at present merely putting until 3.45 such questions in their sequence on the Paper as time will permit, and leaving the remainder to be dealt with by written answer?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As my hon. Friend's suggestion would throw upon the shoulders of Mr. Speaker an invidious burden at very short notice, I do not think that it is practicable.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: In view of that answer, does the right hon. Gentleman not think he might appoint a Select Committee of two or three of the more experienced Members of the House to aid Mr. Speaker in his selection, and take the responsibility for the job?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, so far as I can personally judge, this Select Committee would not work. We, however, intend before the House resumes, to try and get some suggestions for dealing with questions, after—if Mr. Speaker will allow it —consultation with Mr. Speaker.

Lieut. - Colonel GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the position has become much easier lately Several times we have more than 100 questions answered. Is he further aware that any Member who takes the trouble to look on the list and put down his question to a particular Minister on the right day, invariably is able to get an answer?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I really think that is absolutely true. [Laughter] I apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend for my loose phraseology. Hon Members have the remedy in their own hands if they choose to exercise it.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Would it not be a good suggestion that no question referring to an individual case should be put on the Paper, seeing many questions are of that nature, and that the information asked for could be usually got at the Department?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That suggestion is continually being made. It has commended itself to the judgment of the House. Unfortunately, it does not commend itself to every individual Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — VATICAN (BRITISH MISSION).

Mr. LYNN: 61.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state when the temporary British Mission to the Vatican will be withdrawn?

Mr. BONAR LAW: His Majesty's Government are still awaiting certain information, upon the receipt of which a decision on this subject will be made and announced.

Mr. LYNN: When is there likely to be an announcement?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it has been stated, in answer to previous questions, that we were consulting our Dominions, and all the replies have not yet been received.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the announcement made to this House to withdraw the Mission?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Nothing I have said gives any indication of what is our policy.

Mr. E. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very considerable body of opinion in the country that will think it highly undesirable that this Mission should be withdrawn?

HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMORIAL TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.

Major Sir B. FALLE: 62.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the placing of the representation of the coats of arms of those Members who lost their lives in the Great War in a prominent position, say on each side of the clock, in this House to be a perpetual memorial of the loyalty and patriotism of these Gentlemen?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the notice of the House of Commons Committee which is considering the question of a, suitable memorial to the Members of the House who fell in the War.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPITAL LEVY.

Captain W. BENN: 63.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is willing to grant an official inquiry into the practicability of a captal levy?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The views of the Government on this subject have already been stated. We are anxious to secure at the earliest possible moment a decision upon the scope and practicability of a tax on war-time increases of wealth. But for reasons which were fully explained in the finance Debate the Government do not propose to enlarge the scope of reference to the proposed Committee.

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister in a speech at Manchester pledged himself in favour of such an inquiry—that he was in favour of resolutions passed at a certain meeting, one of which was the inquiry into the capital levy?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have heard a great deal of talk about that. [HON. MEMBERS "Read the speech!"]. I think my right hon. Friend said "to the best of his recollection." As a matter of fact, the error arose from this fact: that the Prime Minister had read an account of the first day's proceedings of the Conference, and did not remember that this body was not likely to be satisfied with one day's decision.

Major BARNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the views of the Government in this matter have been formed as a result of any inquiry?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The whole subject was dealt with very exhaustively by members of the Government in Debate, and I cannot add anything to what was said then.

Mr. HOGGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Prime Minister is a half-timer?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 66.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is
aware that an instrument is in course of preparation which will place in the hands of the British South Africa Company further powers for evicting natives from their ancestral homes and lands in Southern Rhodesia; that missionaries of long experience are on their way to appeal to him on behalf of the natives; that there is indignation at the injustices to which the natives of Rhodesia have been subjected; and whether he will consider giving instructions that no Order in Council or other instrument shall be issued which shall prejudice the position of the natives until he has been able to inquire into the facts or until the Colonial Secretary returns from his mission in Egypt?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the negative. No Order in Council prejudicing the natives of Southern Rhodesia is in contemplation.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Governor-General of South Africa has stated that there is no part of the Empire where the natives have received better treatment, and does he know that there is a. growing indignation about the unfounded charges which are repeatedly made against the white races by hon. Members who have not been to the country?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not noticed the expression of opinion by the Governor-General, but I was myself at the Colonial Office and I agree with every word he has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (WIRELESS APPARATUS).

Sir RICHARD COOPER: 67.
asked the Prime Minister if he has considered the advantages of using a number of naval ships, which are fitted with powerful wireless apparatus, to form a temporary chain of stations from England to the East and so relieve the cable service, the present congestion of which is causing a serious loss to British trade?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I fear that my hon. Friend's suggestion is impracticable.

Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea what the cost is likely to be?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend has given one of the reasons why I do not think it is practicable.

Oral Answers to Questions — AMERICAN EXCHANGE.

Mr. REMER: 68.
asked whether the Government have considered the consequences of the serious fall in the American sterling exchange; whether it is increasingly important to avoid importation of unnecessary manufactured goods from America; whether such importation, by seriously affecting the exchange, has the, direct result of increasing the cost of foodstuffs and raw material; and, in view of the urgency in question, what steps the Government propose to adopt?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the last part of the question, I hope that the adverse exchange will itself do something to, cheek unnecessary imports. In view of the desirability of not reimposing Governmental control and restrictions on trade if it can be avoided, the Government do not propose to take any special steps beyond continuing their policy of not giving artificial support to the exchanges by borrowing abroad and doing everything in their power to stimulate British export trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC STATISTICS.

Mr. MARRIOTT: 69.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received a petition praying that a Royal Commission or Parliamentary Committee be forthwith appointed to inquire into the existing methods of the collection and presentation of public statistics, and to report on the means of improvement; whether he is prepared to assent to the prayer; and whether he would be prepared to receive, at an early date a deputation on the subject?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The petition raises questions of considerable complexity, and as soon as the Prime Minister is able to look into the question, I shall inform my hon. Friend whether or not he can find time to receive-a deputation.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question has not only a very high scientific interest, but it has also a very direct practical bearing on national economy?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I mentioned in my answer its importance on economy, but I
think it is only right that my right hon. Friend should have an opportunity of examining it.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS).

Mr. ADAMSON: 74.
asked whether, in view of the approaching Prorogation, he will give time to discuss the question of unemployment and hear the proposals of the Government to meet the situation during the winter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it will be possible to give time for a further discussion of this subject, and I would remind my right hon. Friend that a Debate on this question took place only a fortnight ago.

Mr. E. WOOD: Is it proposed to introduce a Bill dealing with unemployment before the Recess?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is impossible to do it before the Recess, but we hope to introduce it very shortly after we resume.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL WELFARE SCHEMES.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: 77.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the encouragement given in the United States of America to schemes of industrial welfare by the practice of charging to trading account and exempting from taxation expenditure incurred for the purpose of promoting social education, housing, and physical training; and whether, with a view to the encouragement of industrial welfare schemes in this country, he will consider the advisability of exempting from Income Tax any sums which employers may set aside for the provision of similar benefits for their workers?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Under British law current expenditure by employers for the benefit of their workers is allowed as an expense in the computation of the employers' profits for Income Tax purposes; for example, an employer's contribution towards the upkeep and maintenance of a gymnasium, a refreshment room, a recreation ground for his work-people, or the salary paid by him for the services of a welfare superintendent, would be allowable.
Expenditure of a capital character—for example, the cost of erecting a gymnasium or the purchase of a recreation ground—would not, of course, he advisable as a deduction. I am not aware that it is the case that more favourable treatment is given to taxpayers in this respect in the United States.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH PREMIUM BONDS.

Sir MAURICE DOCKRELL: 78.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has arranged that he shall be kept informed through the bankers' clearing house or otherwise as to the amount approximately of capital which is sent from the United Kingdom for investment in French Premium Bonds?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I do not think any useful purpose would be answered by such figures, even if they were obtainable.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL SUBSIDIES.

Mr. A. SHORT: 79.
asked the total amount of subsidies contributed by the State to certain industries during the period of the War and since the Armistice; and, if so, will he state the industries or services subsidised?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer of the 22nd October last to the hon. Member for Hornsey. If this does not give him the information that he desires I shall be obliged if he will communicate to me by letter the exact nature of the further information which he wishes to obtain. In particular I should be glad to have a precise definition of what he intends to include in the word subsidy.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-CABINET MINISTERS (PENSIONS).

Mr. LUNN: 80.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue a statement showing the pensions and special grants to be paid during the current financial year to ex-Cabinet Ministers and others, but not including the ordinary pensions drawn by retired Civil servants?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the Finance Accounts for 1918–19 for particulars of the pensions paid during that year. The only additional pensions which have so far accrued
during the current financial year are certain judicial pensions granted under Statute. The only special grants are those voted by the House on the 6th August last for naval and military services during the War.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC, DEPARTMENTS (OFFICIALS DISMISSED).

Mr. ROSE: 81.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the fact that of the 5,764 officials who constitute the net total dismissals from the Ministries of Pensions, Labour, and. Munitions, during September last, only 163 were in receipt of salaries over £400 per annum, and that the average salary of the remainder was 46s. per week, he will cause to be published with the monthly White Paper a statement showing the grade and average salary of all future dismissed officials?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The figures given by the hon. Member can only be properly considered in the light of the proportion of the higher to the lower staff, as a whole, in the Departments mentioned. I am making further inquiries, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEASLES (NOTIFICATION).

Dr. M'DONALD: 84.
asked the Minister of Health if he will reconsider his decision to abolish compulsory notification of measles in consideration of the fact that the nation has not yet fully recognised the grave complications resulting from this malady?

Dr. ADDISON: The effect of the recent Circular and Order of the Ministry, to which the question refers, is not quite that which is stated in the question. Any local authority which thinks it expedient and makes effective provision to meet the circumstances can continue, or adopt, the notification referred to; but experience has shown that a universally enforced arrangement does not have any sufficiently beneficial results, in the absence of such provision, to justify the great expense entailed. The change was adopted after full consideration, and consultation with persons of wide experience of the problem; and I am satisfied that the steps indicated in the Circular (of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy) will be more effective for the purpose which he, like the Ministry, has in view than the Alternative which he suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE PENSIONS.

Mr. HERBERT: 88.
asked whether, in view of the increased cost of living and of the fact that the present rates of pay in the police force are upon a generous scale, he will consider the question of the pensions now paid to police-constables superannuated before 1914?

Mr. SHORTT: The question has been repeatedly considered, but I regret I do not see my way to propose legislation in the direction desired?

Oral Answers to Questions — AYRSHIRE COAL MINE (FLOODING).

Mr. J. BROWN: 89.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that at Ardeer, Stevenston, Ayrshire, a number of miners lost their lives in 1895 by the flooding of this mine and that in 1905 the mine was again flooded; whether he is aware that the miners allege that the workings are near to a large volume of water and asked that boreholes should be driven in front; that His Majesty's mines inspectors recommended that boreholes should be so driven; that the manager at the mine refused to do so; and that the miners are now idle; and what action he intends to take in the matter?

Mr. SHORTT: I am making inquiries, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA (EMIGRATION SCHEME).

Mr. BENNETT: 91.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if a delegation, composed of Indian and non-Indian members, has been sent from British Guiana to this country for the purpose of promoting a scheme of emigration from India to that Colony; and, seeing that the Indian members of the delegation have been repudiated as having no authority to represent them by the East Indian Association of British Guiana, who have further condemned they project as a labour scheme and not a colonisation scheme, will he inquire into their credentials?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lt.-Colonel Amery): The deputation in question has now left this country, but some of its members have proceeded to India to consult with
the Government of India. The composition of the deputation is not one in which the Secretary of State could interfere, but in considering the proposals which may be put forward by the deputation, due regard will be paid to the interests and views of all sections of the community.

Oral Answers to Questions — Sir JOHN ELIOT (MEMORIAL).

Mr. SlMM: 92.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he is aware that there is not any memorial in the precincts of Parliament to Sir John Eliot, who suffered years of imprisonment and died in the Tower in 1632 in defence of the rights of this House and the liberties of the people; and whether he will take steps, either by securing a copy of the portrait of Sir John Eliot in the Tower, if obtainable, or by other means to provide a fitting memorial to this great parliamentarian?

Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): A portrait of Sir John Eliot appears as one of the figures in Mr. A. C. Gow's picture of "The House of Commons the 2nd March, 1629," now in St. Stephen's Hall. The provision of a memorial is a matter for the decision of the Government, and questions on this subject should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN MERCHANT SHIPS (DISPOSAL).

Mr. LUNN: 93.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller how many German merchant ships have been handed over to the Allies; how many have been retained by this country; and what is the nature of the arrangements for running these ships?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): Up to the 7th December, 355 vessels had been delivered for Allied management, of a total gross tonnage of 1,788,913. Of these, 230 vessels, of a total gross tonnage of 1,209,037 are under British management. The vessels under British management are allocated to shipping firms to manage on behalf of the Shipping Controller.

Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what is the position of affairs as regards the "Imperator?"

Colonel WILSON: I do not think that question arises out of the answer. I think the "Imperator" has now sailed for America.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

BRITISH AND GERMAN DEBITS AND CREDITS.

Sir J. D. REES: 100.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can, before the House rises, give any further information regarding the liquidation of British and German commercial debits and credits, a matter in which so many merchants and manufacturers are vitally interested?

Mr. BR1DGEMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which was given on the 2nd December to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for the Central Division of Nottingham (Mr. Atkey). I regret that I am not at present in a position to add anything to the information contained in that answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANATOLIA.

Mr. HERBERT (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the vital importance to the British Empire of the decisions arrived at in the present Conference with Monsieur Clemenceau concerning the Peace with Turkey, he will see that his Pledge of 5th January, 1918, with regard to the future of Anatolia is carried out?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend may be assured that in dealing with the very difficult question of the settlement with Turkey the considerations referred to in the question will not be overlooked.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR-TIME INCREASES OF WEALTH.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he proposes to do this Session with regard to the Motion upon the Paper for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the proposal to impose a tax on war-time increases of wealth?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government greatly regret that for reasons beyond their control it has been impossible to
secure the appointment of this Committee in time for it to make progress with the inquiry before Christmas.
I understand that all Committees lapse with a Prorogation and that this Committee if now appointed would be unable to sit during the Recess. Under these circumstances I have come regretfully to the conclusion that it would be useless to appoint the Committee at this stage of the Session and that I should not be justified in taking up any of the short time that remains to us in a discussion on its appointment.
But the Government, as my right hon. Friend knows, have invited the co-operation of the House in this matter, and are most anxious to secure it, and we shall propose the appointment of the Committee at the earliest possible moment next Session, for it is important from every point of view that a decision should be reached as soon as possible. The Inland Revenue have had a preliminary Memorandum ready for the consideration of the Committee for same little time. It raises several questions on which they seek a decision to enable them to continue their work. Having sought the assistance of a Committee I was anxious that these points should be considered and the necessary decisions given by the Committee itself, hut in order that delay may be avoided I propose now to give ad interim directions to the Board on the points on which they seek guidance so that they may get on with their task. It will, I hope, be clearly understood by the House that these decisions are purely provisional. They are given only to avoid delay, and will not in any way restrict the liberty of action and of decision of the Committee when appointed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Can the Leader of the House tell us what business it is proposed to take to-morrow, what business is to be taken next week, and what Orders of the Day it is proposed to take under the Motion standing in his name relating to business after eleven o'clock to-night?

Mr. BONAR LAW: To-day we propose to take the first six Orders and numbers 9 and 11; to-morrow the Housing Bill, Report and Third Reading, and other Orders; on Monday, the Army and Air Force Estimates and other outstanding
Estimates; and on Tuesday any remaining Orders on the Paper, Lords' Amendments, and the Second Reading of the Irish Education Bill I shall be obliged if my right hon. Friend will wait until Monday for the business for the rest of the week.

Mr. E. WOOD: What time does the right hon. Gentleman propose that the House shall rise to-night?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot give any indication, but I hope that it will not be as late as it was this morning.

Captain REDMOND: May I ask the Leader of the House, in view of the statement he has made that the Second Reading of the Irish Education Bill is to be taken on Tuesday, if we are to understand that that means that the Government have dropped their pretence of introducing a Home Rule Bill, and do not intend to proceed with it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend does not take that view. I do not think "pretence" is the right word.

Captain REDMOND: "Sham," then!

Mr. BONAR LAW: As a matter of fact, I do not see any connection. In any event, the Home Rule Bill could not come into operation immediately, while the state of education in all parts of Ireland does require an immediate remedy, and in the Bill there are provisions which make it adaptable to the new situation.

Captain REDMOND: Then am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that a Bill for the self-government of Ireland is to be introduced, which is not to come into operation immediately?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member will, I am sure, see that if it were to come into operation instantly it would upset all our previous beliefs that it is impossible.

Captain REDMOND: Am I, therefore, to take it that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend it should come into operation at all? Is not that the real fact?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Am I right in assuming that the Home Rule Bill, or rather the First Reading, will be taken one day next week?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As the House knows, the Prime Minister cannot be here, on account of the presence of M. Clemenceau, and I would rather any questions on this matter should be addressed to him on Monday.

Captain REDMOND: The cat is out of the bag now!

Mr. E. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman state, for the convenience of Members of the House, whether it is still the intention to rise on the 23rd instant, or is there any ground for the rumour circulated in the Lobby that we shall rise at the end of next week?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It all depends on circumstances over which the Government have no control, not only in this House, but in the other.

Lord R. CECIL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very grave dissatisfaction exists at the practice of the Government in taking very important Bills at all night sittings, and may I ask whether, in view of that feeling, he intends to persist with his Motion for the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule to-night in order to enable the Government to commit again this Parliamentary outrage?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think even if the eleven o'clock rule is suspended it will not be necessary for the House to sit late tonight. If I am wrong, the House will not agree with me, but then I know as well as any other hon. Member that the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule towards the end of the Session is customary. After all, our desire is to meet the general convenience of the House.

Lord R. CECIL: Not by all-night sittings.

Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to prevent unnecessary speeches, such as were delivered yesterday?

Dr. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the view of the Minister of Health as to the effect on health of all-night sittings?

Mr. BONAR LAW: After last night's experience I should not consider my right hon. Friend would be impartial.

Major' O'NEILL: Are we to assume that the Irish Education Bill, which is to be taken on Tuesday, is to be taken before or after midnight?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly before, or not at all.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: Is it the intention of the Government to pass the Irish Education Bill through all its stages before the House rises?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is quite impossible.
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government business be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

The House divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 75.

Division No. 152.]
AYES.
[3.56 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)
Doyle, N. Grattan


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Carr, W. T.
Duncannon, Viscount


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)


Allen, Colonel William James
Casey, T. W.
Elveden, Viscount


Armitage, Robert
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Eyras-Monsell, Commander


Astbury, Lieut, Commander F. W.
Chadwick, R. Burton
Falcon, Captain M.


Astor, Viscountess
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm, W.)
Falie, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey


Atkey, A. R.
Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Fell, Sir Arthur


Baldwin, Stanley
Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.


Barlow, Sir Montagu (Salford, S.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Foreman, H.


Barrand, A. R.
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Forrest, W.


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Clyde, James Avon
Gange, E. S.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Coats, Sir Stuart
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Bas'gst'ke)


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John


Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish.
Callas, Major W. P.
Glyn, Major R.


Betterton, H. B.
Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.


Birchall, Major J. D.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Grant, James Augustus


Bird, Alfred
Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Green J. F. (Leicester)


Blair, Major Reginald
Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)


Berwick, Major G. O.
Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic., Loughboro')


Bowyer, G. W. E.
Craig, Co. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E.(B. St. E.)


Breese, Major C. E.
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Gwynne, R. S.


Bridgeman, William Clive
Crooks, Rt. Hon. William
Hacking, Colonel D. H.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)
Hailwood, A.


Bruton, Sir J.
Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)
Hambro, Angus Valdemar


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)


Burden, Colonel Rowland
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)


Burn, T. H. (Belfast)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Haslam, Lewis


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.
Hennessy, Major G.


Campbell, J. G. D.
Dixon, Captain H.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Campion, Colonel W. R
Dockrell, Sir M.
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Matthews, David
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Hickman, Brig,-General Thomas E.
Middlebrook, Sir William
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Hilder, Lt.-Colonel F.
Mitchell, William Lane-
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Hohler, Henry Fitzroy
Moles, Thomas
Simm, M. T.


Holmes, J. Stanley
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Hope, James Fitzalen (Sheffield)
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)


Hope, John Deans (Berwick)
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
Stanton, Charles Butt


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Starkey, Capt. John Ralph


Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)
Mount, William Arthur
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Houston, Robert Paterson
Murchison, C. K.
Stewart, Gershom


Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Sturoock, J. Leng


Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Murray, Maj. C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Sugden, Lieut. W. H.


Hurd, P. A.
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Sutherland, Sir William


Hurst, Major G. B.
Nall, Major Joseph
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Inskip, T. W. H.
Neal, Arthur
Terrell, Capt R. (Henley, Oxford)


Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)
Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)


Jameson, Major J. G.
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Jodrell, N. P.
Norton-Griffiths, Lt.-Colonel Sir J.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchelt- (M'yhl.)


Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.
Tickler, Thomas George


Kellaway, Frederick George
Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Kidd, James
Parry, Lt.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke, Trent)


Knights, Captain H.
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Wardle, George J.


Lane-Fox, Major G. R.
Pennefather, De Fonbtanque
Waring, Major Walter


Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar
Pickering, Col. Emil W.
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wason, John Cathcart


Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton
Weigell, Lt.-Colonei W. E. G. A.


Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Pratt, John William
Weston, Colonel John W.


Lloyd, George Butler
Purchase, H. G.
Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.


Locker-Lampoon, Com. O. (Hunt'don)
Raeburn, Sir William
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Lowe, Sir F. W.
Ramsden, G. T.
Whitla, Sir William


Lynn, R. J.
Raper, A. Baldwin
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Lyon, L.
Rees, Sir J. D.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)
Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)


Macdonald, Rt. Hon, J. M. (Stirling)
Remer, J. B.
Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)


M'Guffin, Samuel
Remnant, Colonel Sir James
Wilson-Fox, Henry


M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)
Rendall, Athelstan
Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecelesall)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Mallalieu, Frederick William
Robinson, T. Stretford, Lancs.)
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Malone, Colonel C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Malone, Major P. (Tottenham)
Rowlands, James



Manville, Edward
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.


Martin, A. E.
Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.
Talbot and Mr. J. Parker


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Gretton, Colonel John
Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)


Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.
Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)
Redmond, Captain William A.


Bell, James (Ormskirk)
Hallas, E.
Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Benn, Captain W. (Leith)
Hayward, Major Evan
Richardson, R. (Houghton)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Widnes)
Royce, William Stapleton


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Sitch, C. H.


Briant, F.
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Bromfield, W.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Spoor, B. G.


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Hogge, J. M.
Swan, J. E. C.


Buckley, Lt.-Colonel A.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Kelly, Edward J. (Donegal, E.)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Cairns, John
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)


Cape, Tom
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Tillett, Benjamin


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Kenyon, Barnet
Wignall, James


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Kiley, James Daniel
Wilkie, Alexander


Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)
Lawson, John
Williams, A. (Consult, Durham)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)


Croft, Brig.-General Henry Page
Lunn, William
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)


Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Marriott, John Arthur R.
Wood, Maj. Mackenzie Aberdeen, C.)


Edwards. C. (Bedwellty)
Mosley, Oswald



Finney, Samuel
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir F.


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward
Banbury and Mr. A. Shaw.


Glanville, Harold James

PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Order [2nd December] for committing the Public Libraries Bill to a Standing Committee be read, and discharged, and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House for this day:"—[Lord B. Talbot.]

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: Before the Question is put, may I ask my Noble Friend if you, Sir, have not already allotted this Bill to one of the Standing Committees; whether a special meeting of the Selection Committee had to be called to set up the Committee and a
special meeting of the Chairmen's Panel called to allot a Chairman to this Bill; and whether in future my Noble Friend will kindly see that this inconvenience is not repeated?

Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I am very sorry if any inconvenience was caused to my hon. Friend or to anybody else, but I am afraid it was an oversight. The Bill should not have been sent to a Standing Committee, but should have been committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Question put, and agreed to.

IRISH LAND (PROVISION FOR SAILORS AND SOLDIERS) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 228.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 228.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 238.]

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY) BILL.

DEBATE ADJOURNED.

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir F. BANBURY: I desire to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, upon a point of Order connected with this Bill. I wish to ask you whether this Bill should not have been founded upon a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means? The Bill provides that all profits over 1s. 2d. a ton should be handed over to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. This is called a coal levy. The Commissioners are given powers to assess and collect this levy. My first question is, Is not this a tax? It is true that this levy is not to be paid into the Exchequer, but it is intercepted, so to speak, and paid to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, but does not that still make it a tax If the practice of interception is admitted, would it not be possible to say that, after Income Tax and Super-tax have been paid, a proportion of the profits of all business should be handed over to the National Debt Commissioners or to some other Department, thus avoiding the safeguards which have been invariably followed when taxation is imposed?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that this Bill imposes any tax, and, therefore, it need not originate in Committee of Ways and Means. There is no provision for applying any moneys to the service of the Crown or to any public purpose. The coal industry is dealt with as a whole. Owners who are making a profit in excess of 1s. 2d. per ton of output pay the excess into a pool, out of which the owners who are not so fortunate have their deficits made up. The Bill, although it repeals one Clause of the Coal Agreement of 1918, is framed upon the same principle as the Act which was founded on that Agreement. There is also a precedent in the Licensing Act, which provides compensation for the extinction of licences, and in the Munitions Levy in 1915.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This Bill is one for which it would be difficult to find a single enthusiastic supporter in this House. Its justification lies in its history and in the emergency which existed earlier in this year, and the emergency which exists to-day in connection with the coal industry. It would be a waste of time for me in this House to recount the incidents which led up to the Commission under Mr. Justice Sankey. It would be a still further waste of time if I were to recount the findings of that Commission which they gave in the interim Report. These are common knowledge. It is common knowledge that in that Report it w as suggested that the arrangements to finance the industry should be on these lines: That there should be a limitation imposed upon the profits of the owners as a whole, and that that limitation should be calculated on the basis of 1s. 2d. per ton of output. This Bill follows almost automatically, I might say, upon the Government's acceptance of that Report. It is, indeed, necessary to complete the action which has been taken by the Government since the 20th March, the day upon which the Sankey Interim Report was accepted by the Government, and the day upon which that acceptance was notified to the House. The Bill is complicated, and highly technical. It is clear from the criticisms which have coins to my knowledge that it is not completely understood. Taking, first of all, the side which were particularly interested in the Sankey Commission namely, the miners—one finds or one meets with the most extraordinary misapprehension with regard to this Bill in the minds of some of them. It has been said that this Bill is designed to end the Sankey wage on the 31st March next. Of course, that is clearly a misunderstanding. That is not the case at all. It has been said it was said to me yesterday—that this Bill did something which it did not appear to do; that, in effect, under this Bill the owners would get 6s. per ton instead of the 1s. 2d. which they appear to get. That, of course, is entirely wrong. Yet these misapprehensions are, I am told, fairly widely spread and widely shared.
Then we have, on the other side, the coal-owners. The circular which has been issued, I understand, by the Mining Association gives a picture of the effect of the Bill which is entirely divorced from the real meaning of the Bill. The circular, of which, I am sure, every Member of this
House has had at least one copy, has been circulated broadcast. It has created a great deal of distress in the minds of shareholders in coal-mining companies. One regrets that so inaccurate a statement should have been circulated by so responsible a body. For instance, it says in the circular:
The pre-war profits of the coal trade were £25,000,000.
That is a sheer hallucination. A sum not far from £25,000,000—about £4,500,000—was the sum of the standard when profits arising from coke ovens and other subsidiary undertakings were included. The sum of the standard was arrived at by taking the best two years out of three, or the best four years out of six in certain instances, before the War. So that every undertaking in the coal industry had peak profits for its standard, the same as other industries. But these profits added together, and other things thrown in, are set down in this circular as if they were the normal average profits of the coal-mining industry. The real figure comparable to that—the figure which would have been a fair figure to take, the average profit for the five years before the War—is almost exactly half the figure set down. Instead of being £25,000,000, it was £12,800,000. So that we start in this circular with a statement which is wildly inaccurate.
The next figure given in the circular refers to 1s. 2d. multiplied by 225,000,000 tons, and that is worked out at £13,151,000. Then the circular goes on to say out of this £13,000,000 all sorts of charges have to be met. It finishes up with a sentence which must have alarmed the shareholders in colliery companies in the most deplorable way:
In some instances under the Government proposal the reduced profit will only be sufficient to pay interest on the debentures and preference shares. It will not be sufficient to pay interest on the ordinary shares.
They quite ignore the fact that under the Bill, in accordance with the provisions of the Finance Act, the interest on debentures, in common with the interest on overdrafts and loans from the bank, comes altogether outside the 2d., and is a charge against the undertaking. So that it is quite clear on both sides—both where it is said that this Bill is giving them enormous sums and where it is indicated that the majority of the mine-owners, and the holders of ordinary shares can hope for no dividends under this scheme—there is a misunderstanding. So perhaps I
shall be excused if I try to explain exactly what the Bill does. The first thing it, does is to separate out those parts of every undertaking concerned with coal mining which are really coal-getting parts. That is necessary in order to bring all the undertakings to the same common denominator. It reduces every undertaking to the same level, that it should be an undertaking which is solely concerned with the getting of coal, and if in an undertaking there is another part which is concerned with something else — coke ovens, brickmaking, farming, the running of wagons, whatever it may be—that is excluded and has nothing whatever to do with the matter. We have this reduction to a common denominator, so that every undertaking affected by this Bill shall be an undertaking which is concerned with getting coal out of the ground and on to the surface. That having been done, it says this series of undertakings shall have their profits limited in respect just of that bit which is cut out, the coal-getting, and the limitation of profits will be fixed in this way. The output of the industry as a whole, in tons, multiplied by 1s. 2d., will give a figure which is the amount of the fund to be distributed in profits on the undertakings which are solely concerned with coal-getting. Then it says the method of distribution of this fund shall be this: The fund will be divided up between the various undertakings, in proportion to the real standard of profits of the coal-getting undertaking which is affected. Then it goes on and says this year in which this limitation is imposed shall be treated specially from the point of view of Income Tax. No averaging will be brought in. The year will stand by itself, so that if there is a reduction in the amount of income the undertaking will pay Income Tax on the income which it has actually got.
That may seem very complicated, and in some sense it is, but at present the coal industry is in such a position that it is absolutely necessary that something should be done. The coal industry has now for years been under control, and certain pits have been allowed to export and certain pits have not been allowed to export coal or to supply bunkers. So that there has been introduced into the coal industry, as the result of the working of control, a differentiation between pit and pit which, because it has been in a sense arbitrary, dealt very hardly with those undertakings which were compelled by the
working of control to supply all their output of coal inland. So that something would have to be done in any case. If nothing were done, and if we went on dither under the old agreement, or if control were suddenly dropped, there would be absolute and complete chaos in the mining industry. For a whole year, this last year, arrangements have been made upon the supposition that this limitation of profits would be operative. The whole basis of the finance is that there shall be a limitation of profits, and that limitation will be worked out on this basis of 1s. 2d. multiplied by the total output of coal in the country, and that will be the sum total of the profits to be distributed in respect of actual coal-getting.
With that position existing, it is clearly necessary that we should have some power to prevent the industry falling into chaos, and because of the undertaking which was given by the Government in March that the profit would be limited to 1s. 2d. a ton we have devised this measure. If we had not given that undertaking the measure would clearly have taken a different form, but some measure would have been absolutely necessary. If we had had no coal control the price of inland coal would have gone to the world-level. The demand for coal from outside would push prices up, and some control would have had to be re-imposed even if the existing one had been removed. Some control was inevitable this year, and, with our transport difficulties, it was inevitable again that the inland collieries should supply inland coal, and the collieries near the coast, near the exporting ports, should supply coal for export. Physical conditions impose that without any chance of escape, however much we wish to struggle against it. So that we are caught in a difficulty which arises directly out of the emergency of the War, and, arising out of the emergency of the War, we regard this purely as an emergency measure which embodies no principle of general application, but merely provides machinery for dealing with the difficulty which exists and we limit its application in this Bill to the period of the financial year. The Government does not regard this as a sound principle. It is absolutely opposed to this method of dealing with industry in normal times, but in an acute emergency things have to be done now, as they were during the War, which would not be done in normal times, and during the War we
have established from time to time control, and with control limitation of profit. The coal industry itself for years has been working under an agreement which did limit profit.

Sir E. CARSON: Since the War?

Sir A. GEDDES: During the War, and also guarantees and fixed prices. What we are doing now is to introduce no new principle. We are merely adjusting an emergency arrangement to a new emergency because the type of emergency changed during the year. That is all that the Bill is designed to do, to adjust certain controls which existed under certain governing conditions to the situation which has arisen. It has been said that the Bill is setting a precedent, is establishing some new principle, and is differentiating against one industry. It is not really a principle at all. It is simply an isolated Act to meet an emergency, just as the action taken under the Munitions of War Act was an isolated act to meet an emergency and did not embody any principle of general application. The thing is quite clear to my mind, that you can distinguish between these acts which are taken in an emergency to meet the emergency, and a general principle which we may lay down as suitable for application in normal times. If hon. Members think that because a thing is done at an abnormal moment, therefore you are establishing a precedent for action in normal times, I disagree with them. That being the Government's position in regard to this Bill, that we look upon it as an emergency measure to meet an emergency which has arisen, we deal in this Bill only with that industry and those parts of the undertaking which are at work in the industry of getting coal out of the ground to the surface, and we leave on one side all other industries and all other parts of the industries which are linked with coal getting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Every industry is linked with coal getting!] Not linked in the same intimate way as certain other industries are linked with coal-getting. We have coal-getting and coke ovens linked together; coal-getting and brickmaking linked together, coal-getting and steel linked together. Then you have coal-getting and the coal merchant's business linked together, or coal getting and the running of coal wagons linked together. We cut out all these parts and say that this Bill does not apply to them. The 1s. 2d. which was
suggested as the rate of profit by Mr. Justice Sankey does not include the profits arising in these other parts of the undertakings. That is a very important point, because it is quite clear that the coal owner must have believed that this is. 2d. covered every part of every undertaking which concerned the getting of coal, otherwise nothing like the figures which they have down on this Paper could have been arrived at. If I take some minutes to elaborate this point it is because on this point a case has been built up directly to prove that this was going to prevent the shareholders in these various undertakings from receiving any dividends at all. The truth is that 1s. 2d. a ton on the average over the whole industry, when you limit it entirely to the coal getting, is a considerably bigger profit than in any average period before the War was ever earned by the coal mining industry. That was recognised by Mr. Justice Sankey at the time when he was laying down a larger sum per ton as the amount of profit which was to be paid on the average—a larger sum than had been earned before.
If it be agreed that this will be the effect of the Bill if it becomes law, we may turn to see what other profits there are which will pass to those concerns which are engaged in coal-getting as well as in other activities. We have to recognise that there will be considerable profit which will also pass to these undertakings, which, when it comes to a question of dividends, will have to be added to the earnings of the coal industry as a whole—profits arising from coke, brick, wagons, etc. Then, under the Finance Act there are allowances for capital which has been put into the industry since the standard was fixed, and over and above that there is allowance for interest on debentures, and there is an allowance for amortisation. These allowances make this emergency measure, in my opinion, a fair measure; fair from the point of view of those who have to consume the coal and fair from the point of view of those whose money is invested in coal-getting.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some figure as to the total of these additions?

Sir A. GEDDES: It is not possible to give a figure which would be accurate until after the end of the financial year. It is not possible until the various standards have been worked out and until the
various capital on which allowances have to be made has been worked out. It is not possible to give a figure which will be at all accurate or a safe guide at the present moment. Quite apart from the question of the financial effect of the Bill, there seems to me a far bigger question involved. It is within the knowledge of the House that in March last the Government announced that it accepted the Sankey Report, and in accepting that it accepted this limitation of profits. Throughout the year and throughout the period of the War, when we have had from time to time industrial disturbances, the Government have told the men who had struck, "You have broken an agreement which was entered into by your leaders. You did not repudiate it at the time, and we require you to stand by that agreement and to continue working under it." It seems to me that in this matter we are very much in the same position. The Government undertook to accept the Sankey Interim Report. As a result of that acceptation we gained peace in the coal fields. There is no doubt that if we had not accepted the Sankey Report there would not have been peace in the coalfields in the spring of this year. There was, in fact, no protest made in this House against the acceptation of that Report. [HON. MEMBERS: "We had no chance!"] There was no protest made by Members of this House then or later. We have had numerous opportunities in this House when this agreement could have been disputed. The whole finance of the coal industry has been discussed here many times, and invariably upon the basis that coal-owners' profits were going to be limited to 1s. 2d. a ton. Was there in any single Debate a challenge of that acceptation on that basis? I do not think so. I have searched the OFFICTAL REPORT to see if there was a single challenge in any one of these Debates, and I cannot find one. If at any time the House had disagreed with the Government's acceptation of this limitation, occasion could have been found for discussion of it. But I do not think any Member of this House felt that the Government had acted otherwise than correctly and rightly in accepting the Sankey Report.

Sir C. CORY: We protested by deputation.

Sir A. GEDDES: I do not know of any deputation which came to lodge a protest against this acceptation of the Report.

Sir C. CORY: A deputation from the coal-owners met the Leader of the House and yourself and the Coal Controller on the 22nd of March and protested strongly against the acceptance of the Sankey award. The right hon. Gentleman was there, and I was there myself. Later we had a very much larger deputation, which met at the Board of Trade the President of the Board of Trade and the Coal Controller. I have the Report here, and I made some rather strong remarks. The right hon. Gentleman asked us to form a sub-committee to work out the details, and I said, "You are really asking us to aid you to advance a scheme of confiscation which will affect the coal trade, whereas if nationalisation comes about in a month or two the scheme will be quite unnecessary." I then went on to say, "Do not ask us to help you, because we do not want to help you to draw up any such scheme. I will not be a party to appointing a sub-committee for such a purpose. It is confiscation." That was at the Board of Trade on the 10th of April last, and it was because the Government was asking the coal-owners to appoint a sub-committee to discuss terms with you to carry out the Sankey award.

Sir A. GEDDES: The hon. Member is dealing with quite a different point than the point with which I was dealing. There is the greatest difference between my meeting a deputation of coal-owners—which I did and which I was going to refer to, because I have the actual extracts before me now—and what was done in this house.

Sir C. CORY: Oh, no!

Sir A. GEDDES: Indeed there is. Surely it would be a strange doctrine if the Mining Association and the House of Commons were to be regarded as the same body. There is the greatest possible difference. The point I am making now is this: Was there in this House from any considerable body or section of the House a refusal to associate itself or to allow itself to be associated with the Government in the acceptation of the Sankey Report? There was no such dissociation, and if an undertaking given by the Leader of the House has any binding effect upon us the present course follows his acceptance of the Sankey Report on behalf of the Government. I am not suggesting that the House pledged itself, but I am saying that the Government was not notified by any
considerable section of the House that it disagreed with the Government's acceptation of the Interim Report of the Sankey Committee. That is a perfectly fair declaration of the position. Just as in dealing with trade unions and in entering into an agreement with the leaders of the unions we expect, unless we hear within a reasonable time to the contrary, the individual members of that union to stand by the agreement, so I think the other party to this discussion, which is the Miners' Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, may quite legitimately say, "Well, the Government accepted this; they never dissociated themselves from the Government, and we honestly believed that they had accepted the Government's decision." What seems to me the most serious thing about the whole position from the political point of view, not from the coal-owners' point of view, is this: that if the Government's acceptation of the Sankey Report was not supported, that a blow would be struck at all collective bargaining that has gone on in connection with industries, and the collective bargaining upon which we have based, in the main successfully, the industrial peace of this country.
That is to me the serious side of the position in which we find ourselves to-day. It was not only then, but during the progress of the Bill as to the price of coal and during the whole of the Session, that the assurance was given that this limitation was to be imposed, and therefore I am authorised to say that the Government regards itself as absolutely pledged to do its utmost to carry out the undertaking which it gave in good faith, on the 20th March—an undertaking the giving of which had the effect of securing industrial peace at a time when the strain in the industrial world was much more intense than it is now. We stand by that undertaking then given, and we think that the Miners' Federation would have good cause to say to their supporters that the Government had accepted the Report. The coal-owners, or a certain section of them, throughout have quite clearly and definitely said that they dislike the principle. As I say, I do not think that there is any principle. It simply is devoid of principle. The question of principle does not arise. It simply is not there. There are obviously two meanings. It is merely a question of expediency as to the best way of meeting an emergency, so that when
the coal-owners say that they do not like the principle, I say I am not dealing with the principle. I am dealing with an emergency Act to meet an emergency situation.
When they say that this is introducing something new into Government relations with industry I say that I do not think it is. We have had it throughout the War because of emergency. We had, especially in the Munitions of War Act, very much the same thing as this, and in distant times similar action was taken because of emergency. There are records of the fixation of prices hundreds of years ago. From time to time, as emergencies have arisen in this country, emergency action of this kind has been taken, and therefore merely as an emergency Act to meet an emergency situation, an Act to which we were pledged in March, which we must carry out because of that pledge, and to keep faith with the Miners' Federation—on that basis we bring this Bill before the House and we lay down definitely in the Bill that this arrangement is to be limited to one financial year, a year which has only four months to run. And after that time we shall have to have, until we have returned absolutely to the full normal level, whatever that may be, some form—I hope quite a different form, but still probably some, form—of regulation of the distribution of coal. But as soon as you come to regulate the distribution of coal you are brought into a position in which you have to regulate in some way also the profits of individual undertakings, and one can say most whole-heartedly that one looks forward with anxiety to the day when the regulation of the distribution of coal can pass out of the hands of a Government Department into the hands of those who are directly responsible for industry through being engaged in it, and though the future policy with regard to coal is not touched upon in this Bill at all, there will have to be, after the close of this financial year, some other system for dealing with the coal industry until, as I have said, we have reached a position of full normality.

Lord R. CECIL: As the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made is one of immense importance, I think that the House would like to have it made quite clear whether it means that the policy of the Government is to continue, even after the 31st March next, some regulation of the price, of coal?

Sir A. GEDDES: That may be necessary, but I say quite clearly and distinctly that the Government does not intend to continue a limitation of profits in anything like the form which we have got in this Bill. So long as there is a regulation of prices, which might be necessary, there is an indirect limitation of profits, and it is only in that sense that I speak of any future limitation of profits. I hope, at all events, that what I have said is sufficient to make it quite clear that this Bill deals only with those parts of undertakings winch are concerned with getting the coal out of the mines, that it does not touch other parts of industry, that this is a temporary measure, that it is an emergency proposal designed to meet an emergency situation and that we regard this Bill as the final Bill under which this sort of control of profits will exist up to the time to which it is to continue.

Mr. L. SCOTT: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
The speech to which we have just listened has no doubt elicited the sympathy of the House for the right hon. Gentleman in his extraordinarily unattractive task. While relieving the House on some points the speech left us with difficulty and anxiety on others. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would not object to my summing up the position by saying that while we admit that he is not an unprincipled man, we regard him rather as devoid of principle. It is important on this occasion that the House should have an undertaking from the Government, in connection with this Bill in an absolutely explicit and unambiguous form. The Bill is in my view a bad Bill. If we were merely to act on the memorandum with which it is prefaced I feel certain that the majority of this House would vote against it. The former practice of this House was, when a Bill was introduced to meet any particular mischief or to deal with any particular emergency, to insert in the Preamble of the Bill a recital of what the mischief or emergency was. The advantage of that practice over the modern practice of a memorandum, which does not become part of the Bill, was that always afterwards the Preamble remained as a statement of why the Bill was introduced by
which it would be always possible to see the exact application of the proposals of the Bill and prevent misconception.
Every Member of this House has no doubt been deluged with resolutions by almost every industry in this country objecting to the Bill on the very ground that it is likely to give a precedent for other Bills in the future because of the principle which it applies, and I ask the Government, on the assumption that the Bill may be read by a majority of this House a second time, to agree that in Committee they would put the salient points of the memorandum into a Preamble in order that there may be no possibility of somebody in future saying, "Here is an Act of Parliament. It embodies certain principles. We do not know what the precise circumstances were in which the Act was passed." It stands as a record of the view of Parliament for all time. A statement in the Preamble of the immediate purpose and the emergency character of the measure would prevent that particular misconception. The whole Bill depends entirely on the question of the pledge which the Government gave. To me there seems to be no justification at all for the Bill, apart from the pledge. For that reason I will ask the House to allow me to go a little closely into the pledge.
5.0 P.M.
We all to-day, as the right hon. Gentleman said, feel easier in our minds as to the industrial position in this country than we did on the 20th March. But in judging this pledge we must put ourselves back to the 20th March. The Coal Industry Commission had been appointed by Act of Parliament for the express purpose of preventing a strike in the mining industry. The first report was made on the very day when the Leader of the House gave the pledge which he did give to the miners of the country. It had only just come into the hands of Members when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, and they had not had time to read it and did not know its terms. But in the course of his statement the right hon. Gentleman did say:
one of the proposals in this Report is that the profits of the coal masters shall be limited to 1s. 2d. per ton.
And later on he said: "In regard to this whole Report, we have had a discussion in the Government this afternoon, and I say now, on behalf of the Government, that we
propose to adopt the Report itself, and to take all the necessary steps to carry out its recommendations without delay." I agree that that is a word of importance, because if you look at the Report you will see that among the recommendations there is nothing about the 1s. 2d. It is in the body of the Report that the suggestion about the 1s. 2d. appears; but, for all that, the right hon. Gentleman did say in this House that one of the proposals of the Report was the 1s. 2d., and he did use the expression I have just quoted at the end of his statement. Looking back to that night, I do not think there is a Member of this House who would say for a moment that what the right hon. Gentleman then said was not addressed by him as Leader of this House to the Miners' Federation.

Mr. HARTSHORN: As a threat?

Mr. SCOTT: As a promise. I am not referring to an incident which took place that evening. It Was a promise that if they would not strike the Government would carry out the Sankey Report. I observe that the hon. Member opposite, who represents the miners with such great ability in this House, seems to shake his head at the idea that it was a promise to the miners. I imagine that if the miners do not want it, the hon. Gentleman will inform the House now or later.

Mr. HARTSHORN: My only point was this: We were not content with the Sankey Award. We asked for 30 per cent. and got 20; we asked for six hours and got seven; and the Leader of the House, in proclaiming the decision of the Government that they were going to stand by that award was not making a promise at all, but giving us an intimation that, if needs be, they were prepared to fight us in defence of the Report.

Mr. SCOTT: The next time I offer my hon. Friend half a loaf I suppose he will say it was not an offer because it was not the whole loaf. I think the hon. Member will agree that it was a promise made to the miners at the time, and that it was acted upon by the miners. That is the important aspect of the case. In consequence of that statement, the miners' strike was called off. That being so, I venture to think that this House must consider what its position is in relation to a promise so given by the Leader of the Government of the day. It is quite true that
we had really no opportunity of discussing the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, because we did not know the contents of the Sankey Report. Nevertheless, in a crisis of that kind, if this House says, We are content to let the matter be settled to-night and not to insist upon discussing the matter to-morrow or the next day, when we have had time to think it over," then, in my view, the House must be taken to have stood by and to have accepted what was said on behalf of the Government; and it might be, in spite of what the President of the Board of Trade said just now, that the House of Commons, under such circumstances, is just as much bound as the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] I hear murmers of dissent, but I think this is a question of vital importance to the constitutional government of this country. What is the excuse put forward in the country by those Labour leaders who are in favour of direct action, as it is called, as against constitutional action? It is just this, that by constitutional action they cannot get what they want. Why? Because they say they cannot trust Governments. The only answer to the direct actionists is to maintain the honour of Parliament absolutely. Governments fall from one cause or another. May quote a verse of the fifteenth psalm—
He that sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not … shall never be moved.
That is true of Governments as well as of men, and it is true of this House that we have to uphold the honour of constitutional government by carrying out pledges when they are given to any section of the community, even though the performance of the pledge may, as I think this does, involve a pecuniary sacrifice of a considerable character to the community at large. It is only if we uphold as almost the strongest principle of the British Constitution the absolute performance of pledges given under such circumstances, that we can maintain constitutional government in this country.
I think it is equally important to see that when a pledge is given of a character that in the event proves unfortunate, the Government should not go beyond its pledge in carrying it out. They have said, quite frankly, to-day, that the principle of this Bill is bad, but that, having made a bad bargain, we must stick to it. With that I agree. I want to make quite certain, however, that before we let this Bill through to-day on the Second Read-
ing, we get such undertakings from the Government as will make certain that it does not go one whit beyond the pledge then given. In order to ensure that position, I think it is necessary to see exactly what the Sankey Report proposed, and what the Government pledged themselves to carry out. The Commission was appointed to consider, first of all, hours and wages, and it is to be observed that the coal-owners gave no evidence at all on any question of profit at that first inquiry. Mr. Justice Sankey and his co-signatories, came to the conclusion that the proposals then made would cost the industry as a whole £43,000,000. But, he said in effect, that, owing to the pledge given by the Government, the coal mines agreement should not cost the Exchequer anything, but that all payments made thereunder should be paid by the industry out of its own earnings, evidence as to which was given by Sir Arthur Lowes Dickinson before the Commission (Question 148) on the lines of the pledge given by the Leader of the House on the Second Reading of the Bill on 12th November, 1917 (column 123, OFFICIAL REPORT). That being so, Mr. Justice Sankey had to find a means by which the expense to the industry of the proposed changes could be met out of the industry for that year.
If hon. Members will look closely at the Report they will see that he was limiting himself purely to that year, as is correctly stated on the face of the Memorandum attached to the Bill. It was only in order to balance the account for that year, without regard to principle at all, that the Commission proposed to limit profits to.1s 2d. I think, to quote the right hon. Gentleman, it is perfectly fair to say that in suggesting the 1s. 2d. limitation there was no idea of principle at all. That being so, I think we may properly accept the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade to-day, that in seeking to, carry out a pledge by means of this Bill the Government are not seeking to introduce any new principle. Although we may accept that statement, I think we want something more than a statement in that form. I want the Government to make it clear that that is so in considered and definite undertakings in regard to, the Bill, as a condition, as far as I am concerned, of not dividing against the Bill. Unless the undertakings given by the Government are satisfactory, the House, ought to divide against the Bill.
It has been objected by some that carrying out this pledge to the miners means the breaking of a pledge to the coal-owners by the repealing of the Coal Mines Control Agreement. I venture to think there is nothing in that. The Government have the right to determine that agreement at any time, and I do not think that the position of the coal-owners is any worse for this year under the terms of this Bill than it is under the terms of the Coal Mines Control Agreement. I should not be a party to any charge against the Government based upon the accusation that they were treating the industry unfairly by the terms of this Bill as compared with the Coal Mines Control Agreement. I submit very earnestly that the decision of the House on his matter ought not to turn on that question at all, but simply and solely on the question as to whether the Government state in satisfactory terms that their view of the principle of limitation of profit is utterly wrong, and give a satisfactory promise to prevent its repetition in the coal industry and its application to any other. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading said that there was no new principle in this Bill. In one sense that is true, but in another it is utterly untrue. We have never before, so far as I know, had any Bill proposed in Parliament by which it was suggested that profits as profits should be limited. It removes all incentive, it destroys all initiative, and it is utterly different in its character from a limitation of prices or from taxation of profits. The real and fundamental difference between a limitation of profits and a limitation of prices should be understood, so that we can make certain that the undertakings we are asking for are in the right form. A limitation of prices may have the effect of reducing profits, but it does not affect incentive or initiative. You may fix the price, but the man is still left to take the fullest advantage of every economy that he can effect in his business and every new addition to the efficiency of its administration. The same is true of the taxation of profits.
Under the Coal Mines Control Agreement it is quite true that the profits of the coal-owners were taxed to the extent of 95 per cent, of the excess profits over the pre-war standard. But, none the less, it was not because the principle of the agreement was wrong that that was the
result, but merely because the taxation was made so high. This Bill, by professing to limit profits, introduces into British legislation a. new principle in regard to the application of legislation to industry. As this Bill stands, there is no incentive at all for any colliery to do anything either to maintain output or to earn profits. If an industry makes a profit during the current year which exceeds its pre-war profit, it gets no advantage, because the balance is taken away. If it makes less than its pre-war profits, it loses nothing because it has the difference made up to it.

Mr. HOUSTON: What about the shipowners?

Mr. SCOTT: I appreciate that during the War shipowners suffered in a certain way, and I notice that the House is in sympathy with the hon. Member's view. The big point is that this Bill for the first time in English history proposes to limit profits as such and destroy initiative. The point is one upon which I believe practically every Member of this House except certain members of the Labour party are all agreed, that to limit profits in an industry destroys all that incentive upon which, human nature being what it is, the success of all industry in this country depends. I read with the greatest interest, and if I may say so with complete agreement, a passage in the Prime Minister's speech at Manchester last Saturday, and in that speech there is, I think, a statement of the soundest possible character as to trade and industry. The Prime Minister said:
There is a new challenge to civilisation. What is it? It is fundamental. It affects the whole fabric of society as we know it: its commerce, its trade, its industry, its finance, its social order; all are involved in it. There are those who maintain that the prosperity and strength of the country have been built up by the stimulating and invigorating appeal to individual impulse, to individual action. That is one view. The State must educate; the State must assist where necessary; the State must control where necessary; the. State must shield the weak against the arrogance of the strong; but the life springs from individual impulse and energy. That is one view. What is the other? That private enterprise is a failure tried and found wanting, a complete failure, a cruel failure. It must be rooted out and the community must take charge as a community; to produce, to distribute, as well as to control.
In my view, that is the big political cleavage in the new political world since the War, and the Government ranges itself on the side of the Prime Minister in this
matter. Are we to get an undertaking in this House to-day that that policy will be followed by the Government in the policy of this Bill and for the future? Since the Government gave a pledge, and since that pledge must have been understood by the miners, according to the language of the statement of the Leader of the House that he gave a pledge, and since in that statement he referred to the proposal to limit profits for this year to 1s. 2d., in my view, we are bound to carry out that pledge, if the Government limit the Bill to the performance of that pledge strictly and by giving us the undertaking I ask for, make it clear for the future, and to prevent this Bill in the future being used as a precedent to the injury of British industry. What I ask the Government to state to-day are these points: (1) That the principle of the Bill is wrong and if again applied, except as a war measure, will be fatal to British industry—does the right hon. Gentleman agree to that? (2) and that under no circumstances shall the Bill be renewed or any limitation of profits applied to the coal industry after the 31st of March next; and (3) that the principle of this Bill, that is, limitation of profits, shall not be applied to any other industry whatever. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree to those points, and perhaps he would say so before I sit down?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): If the House accept that as my speech, I shall be very glad. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Then I would rather give my explanation in my speech.

Mr. SCOTT: In view of that statement of what the right hon. Gentleman is going to say, I, for one, think that the House ought to stand by the Government and its pledge of the 20th of March last, and, bad as this Bill is, pass it rather than repudiate that. If the Government do make that pledge, I shall net press the Bill to a Division so far as I am concerned, but for the time being I move that the Bill be read this day three months.

Sir HENRY NORMAN: I beg to second the Amendment for the time being.
It has become abundantly evident, as the President of the Board of Trade said in his speech, that this Bill was not introduced because anybody liked it nor has it been introduced because it will do anything to clear up the chaotic state in which the coal industry finds itself. On the contrary it has not a friend in the House, and
it is quite clear that many hon. Members who may vote for it in the Lobby will do so for reasons totally different from any affection for it. It is an exception to the natural law that parents admire their own offspring. I have never heard during the eighteen years or more I have been a Member of this House a Bill introduced in such a series of excuses. The apologies of my right hon. Friend when introducing and fathering this Bill were almost abject in their humility. The matter is too serious in my opinion to be left where it has been left by the speech of the President of the Board, and even by the able speech of my hon. and learned Friend who moved the rejection for the time being.
Very few people understand this Bill. Even to-day and even after the speech of the President of the Board of Trade this 1s, 2d. per ton of coal from the time Mr. Justice Sankey proposed it, without appreciating what he meant by it, down to the memorandum in one of the Clauses of the Bill has really been a puzzle equal to Professor Einstein's theory that time is really a dimension of space. Nobody understands it. For months the greatest coal experts in the country have differed constantly in their interpretation of this 1s. 2d. Most people believed that it meant that for every ton of coal 1s. 2d. should be paid to the coal-owner, and probably many people still believe that. Of course, it means nothing of the kind. Many people, I am sure, do not realise that under this 1s. 2d. restriction some coal-owners may get 3s. per ton, and other coal-owners may get 3d. per ton. Nobody knows how much they are going to get. The mystery is deepened by this Bill. Hitherto we have all believed that the coal-owners would be paid upon their individual output, and that each undertaking was to dip into a pool in proportion to output. That statement was recently made in this House and in the House of Lords. Heaven knows, that would have been bad enough, for if the total output was 225,000,000 tons for each 1,000 tons of increased output the colliery-owners would get one two hundred and twenty-five thousandth part of the pool, but this Bill, if I understand it, and I shall be corrected if I am wrong, now drops output altogether as the basis on which the coal-owner is to be paid. Every colliery has, of course, a standard, either a pre-war standard or a substituted standard, or a percentage standard, and the owners of the standard are to be paid, according to para-
graph 2 of the memorandum and Clause 1 (1) of the Bill, upon the proportion of his standard to the aggregate of all the standards. There is nothing about being paid on output. That method of assessing profits might delight Professor Einstein, but it is a puzzle to most of us. No one can possibly know how much he will get. This I venture, subject to correction, to assert, that in many cases the owner's remuneration must be in inverse proportion to his output, because the standard remains fixed while the output may vary. If within a given period his output falls by ten thousand tons, he will practically get the same as if it had not fallen, and thus in that instance the less coal he gets the greater will be his profit per ton. Am I not right, therefore, in saying that this Bill cannot have been introduced because it would do anything to clear up the chaos in which the coal industry finds itself. No, Sir, of course the Bill has been introduced, as we all know, because the Leader of the House feels it to be necessary to redeem the pledge he gave on behalf of the Government in March last. This point has been very fully dealt with by my hon. Friend who preceded me, and so I have very few words to say about it. We all admit that a pledge is a pledge, and honourable men must redeem it. It is not necessary again to dwell on the difficult and painful circumstances in which the pledge was given. We all remember them only too well. But surely it can be shown that the pledge has already been fully kept. The pled0067e was, and these are the substantive words, by the Leader of the House on 20th March:
I say now on behalf of the Government that we are prepared to arms the Report in the spirit as well as in the letter and to take all the necessary steps to carry out its recommendations without delay.
The recommendations were, great reduction of hours of the miners and great increase of wages, and those two have been fully carried out. One shilling and two-pence per ton was not a recommendation. It is referred to only twice in the recommendations, and first in Section 6 of Mr. Justice Sankey's Interim Report in these words:
It is thought that these results may be obtained as explained in our Report without raising the price of coal to the consumer.
And again, in paragraph 8 of the Report, we find these words:
To meet this (that is the deficit) it is proposed … to allow the coal-owners to retain is. 2d.
Therefore the 1s. 2d. was a proposal of financial machinery and not a recommendation. Any other financial machinery to meet the necessities of the case would be an equally good fulfilment of the pledge. So I claim to have shown that this Bill is not needed to fulfil the right hon. Gentleman's pledge either in the letter or in the spirit. The pledge was undoubtedly given, if not to the miners then to Labour generally. Labour is very largely and ably and responsibly represented in this House, and if Labour as so represented here repudiates this Bill, surely that again relieves the right hon. Gentleman from his pledge. If the people to whom the pledge was given do not want it to be fulfilled, whoever does? Moreover, the estimates upon which Mr. Justice Sankey based his proposal have been falsified by events. The price of coal for export has not fallen, as he said it would; it has risen, and instead of a deficit of £9,000,000 at this point, there is a profit of £16,000,000.

Sir A. GEDDES: I do not know about that profit of £16,000,000. This is one of those myths that is rapidly growing, and I would like to check it if possible. In the Debate on Friday week, I think it was. I said that if things went on as they were as regards sales, and if the price was not altered, the forecast was that at the end of the financial year there would be a profit of £17,000,000. That is quite different from saying there is a profit or £16,000,000 now.

Sir H. NORMAN: I am willing to modify my statement to any extent that may be necessary because of my right hon. Friend's interruption, but I venture to suggest that my statement need not be modified in any substantial degree. There is in all probability a profit—

Sir A. GEDDES: Oh, no! That is the whole, point. Prices have been changed, and therefore there will be no profit.

Sir H. NORMAN: I can only say I wish I had the subtlety of mind of Einstein without his nationality, because I find it very difficult to follow the constant changes of calculation. However, I pass over that.

Sir A. GEDDES: Will the right hon. Gentleman excuse me? This is a thing that has got wrong somehow, and is being represented quite differently from what will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There has been no change of calculation
in connection with that matter at all. The statement was quite clear at the time that this possibility of a profit made it possible to do another thing, which was done, but there is no profit.

Sir H. NORMAN: Very well, then, in that case the House will take the facts upon that point put as my right hon. Friend states them, and not as I believed them to be. But there is the other point, in regard to Mr. Justice Sankey's Report, that the output of the year will not be 250,000,000 tons; probably it cannot be more than 225,000,000 tons, which again alters the calculation. Thirdly, the 1s. 2d. per ton in the Bill does not benefit the miners by a halfpenny, and the consumer can be safeguarded, it seems to many of us, in infinitely less objectionable ways. Thus, if there is any cogency at all in these arguments, it shows that from every point of view this Bill is not required.
What is it precisely that we find so extremely objectionable in the Bill? It relates, I contend, in spite of all that has fallen from my right hon. Friend, to principles and profits. Let me take the latter first as the least important. In regard to the use of the word "coal-owners," no doubt many people think the word means a few rich men who have made large fortunes out of the coal trade, but those men are very few in number, and it must, in fairness, be said that their fortunes, to a large extent, have been re-invested in the coal trade. The real coal-owners are not the few, but the many, and they are the shareholders. Most of them are men with very small holdings in shares, and they are the men that those of us who are directors of mines see coming to meet us and demand an account of our stewardship at the annual meetings of colliery companies. Nobody who ever looks at an annual meeting of a colliery company will think he has an assembly of capitalists before him. Many of them have invested all their lifelong savings in the coal industry. If the Bill becomes law, and if the figures of the Inland Revenue are correct, there is every reason to fear that these people of small means will lose an important part of the capital value of their investments. I will not put it higher than this, and I am not responsible in the slightest degree for the statement issued by the Mining Association. I have considered this matter as closely as I can, and I am profoundly convinced of that, that they may lose an important part of the capital value of their investments.
Those, therefore, who support this Bill to hit the capitalists are really striking 100,000 or 150,000 people in the small savings of years of hard work. It may be urged—indeed, it has been urged by my right hon. Friend—that these Inland Revenue figures are based upon a few boom years.

Sir A. GEDDES: The standards were the two best or the four best out of the three or the six years, or they were percentage standards, so that right through the whole industry each undertaking was put at its high water-mark, and therefore the correct standard is the sum of individual high water-marks and not a reproduction of anything that ever happened in any year.

Sir H. NORMAN: I will adopt with pleasure my right hon. Friend's word, and I will not say the boom years, but the high water-mark years. I admit fully that the omission of coke and other ancillary enterprises makes the shareholders' position much better, but that apart, I venture with great respect to submit that that argument would really hardly be used by anybody who is familiar with the coal trade. It is precisely by those boom years, it is precisely by those high water-mark years, that the average colliery dividend is maintained. It is common knowledge that a large number of collieries work at a loss or for trifling dividends for several years, sometimes seven or eight, in anticipation of two or three years' boom. During the last fifty years that boom has generally occurred something like every ten or twelve years. To give an example from my personal knowledge, in the case of a colliery which has been working for a little over fifty years, for several years in succession it paid a dividend of 20 per cent., and for some other years 15 per cent. Someone may say, "What outrageous profits to take out of the coal consumers' pockets!" Yes; but for the fourth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third, and twenty-fourth years it did not pay a halfpenny of dividend at all, and for six years it paid dividends of 3 per cent. or under. So if for four years it paid 20 per cent. and for six years 15 per cent., it was precisely for those years that the money had been originally invested, and its average of fifty-four years was under 7½ per cent. Does anybody suppose that a speculative enterprise like coal-getting and coal-
selling will attract money with a dividend averaging less that 7½ per cent.? That is true of one of the best collieries, and best managed, in the United Kingdom. With regard to the limitation of profits to a fixed sum, collieries of this class will certainly not continue to operate at a loss for many years; they will either go into the Bankruptcy Court, or they will close down as the wiser policy. I am not defending capitalists' excessive profits. I have long held that there cannot be industrial peace and justice until capitalists' profits are shared with the men who help to make them. I am only pointing out how grave will be the effect of the proposals of this Bill upon the coal industry and how bitterly unjust to the real coal-owners, namely, the 100,000 or 150,000 small shareholders in colliery companies. The, great recent drop in the price of colliery shares shows this, and the almost complete stoppage of development, for which, by the way, this Bill does nothing. In Yorkshire alone developments requiring £12,500,000 to finance them are absolutely in abeyance.
But even graver still are the principles involved in this Bill, and I cannot for a moment admit that there are not principles at stake in this measure. The first of them is the limitation of profits, regardless of cost or price, to a fixed sum or a fixed percentage. It is not restriction of price; that is totally different. It is not taxation of excess profits; that, again, is totally different. It is saying, "However wise the choice of your business, however efficient has been your management, however hard you may have worked, you shall not make a profit of more than so much per unit of production." It is perfectly obvious that this is a death blow to initiative and individual effort, that it puts a premium upon extravagance in management, and that one of its certain results will be to increase the price to the consumer. But it is doubly indefensible to apply this principle to one industry alone. If coal, why not iron, why not shipping, why not cotton? There is no answer. Obviously, the limitation of profit in this sense, right or wrong, imposed upon one business, must be imposed upon all businesses alike. And which industry has been selected for this destructive blow? The basic industry of the nation, the industry which is the very foundation of our commercial and industrial existence, a highly speculative business, a pioneering business.
I submit to the House that these principles embodied in it utterly condemn the present Bill. It seems to me no economist, no student of industrial conditions, no simple man of business can possibly support it. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, when he comes to speak, may repeat, in even stronger words, what the President of the Board of Trade has already said, that it is "only for a short time." But if the principle is adopted, it is adopted, whether it is for an hour or whether it is for an age. I recollect my right hon. Friend saying in a subsequent remark that this limitation of profits would not be done again "in anything like this form." That leaves a very wide open door. But, in the second place, the Leader of the House has said, and may say again, that it is "not to be a precedent." No, Sir, not for him, but it will be a precedent for others. He will even admit that it is not a sound principle, that it is a vicious principle, but in that case he will have had the responsibility of putting a vicious principle upon the Statute Book. The hideous muddle—these are not exaggerated words—into which the coal trade and the coal interests in the widest sense have been allowed to drift, will never be cleared up until there has been a really competent and independent inquiry into the whole question of the coal industry and its relations to the public.
I earnestly ask the Government to withdraw tins Bill and institute such an inquiry. The Sankey Commission will never be accepted as a satisfactory investigation. Without going so far as to say, with Professor Bone, that it was a mixture of punch and judy show and trial scene in "Alice in Wonderland," it was unsatisfactory for many reasons. In the first place, it was working against time. In the next place, it was not a fair tribunal. Again, it was a tribunal in which the judges became witnesses, went into the witness box, and then came back and took their scats on the bench and adjudicated on their own evidence. The witnesses there were browbeaten and irrelevancies almost innumerable were committed. It reported on certain matters without having heard the evidence upon them. The Chairman's Report was signed even before it was discussed by the Commission. For many months nobody knew what its Report meant. I wish the Government would institute a real inquiry.
What they are doing now is to introduce indefensible principles into legislation; to inflict a grave injury upon a very large body of people, to imperil the development of our basic industry. They may be helping a lame dog over a stile, but at the same time they are hobbling a sound dog. They are fettering efficiency, and they are offering crutches to incompetence. They talk about protecting minor key industries from attacks abroad. I submit that they would be better occupied in defending the great key industry upon which our industrial and commercial existence rests against attacks at home.

Mr. ADAMSON: The President of the Board of Trade, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill this afternoon, told us that its terms were very much misunderstood, and that he did not think it had many friends in the House. I venture to suggest to him that if its terms were very much misunderstood, we did not in the course of his speech get very much enlightenment as to some of the leading provisions in the Bill. The Bill is one of the most important and far-reaching that has come before the present Parliament. As the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House has said, it deals with an industry on which the future of our industrial prosperity, as a nation, entirely depends. Not only is the future of 1,200,000 persons engaged in tile industry involved, but the future of the whole of our people is bound up in the industry with which this measure seeks to deal. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the House and the country should give close and careful attention to this measure, which, if placed on the Statute Book in anything like its present form, will undoubtedly create a serious condition of things in the mining industry in this country. The President of the Board of Trade told us that it was a highly technical Bill. I would rather be inclined to say that it is a craftily drawn Bill, because, while it pretends to deal principally with the limitation of coal-owners' profits to 1s. 2d. a ton, from the explanations that we got, we are in a position to draw our own deduction as to whether the figure named as the figure to which profits are to be limited is a correct one or not. For instance, the President told us that by-products did not come within the terms of this Bill. But I think, if my memory serves me right, we had the information given in connection with the
Commission that if the profits made from by-products were spread over the whole industry, it would add something like 6d. a ton to the profits earned by the owners. Then he told us that loans and debentures were outside, and that certain charges would be permissible for redeeming the capital that was sunk in certain parts of the industry.
So that, from the information he has given us, while one cannot just correctly assess the profits that will be made, it is certainly a profit of much more than 1s. 2d. a ton. There have been rumours going round that deputations have been waiting upon certain members of the Government, and that these deputations have been getting assurance that the profits which would accrue to the trade in terms of this Bill, if it is passed in its present form, would be possibly double the amount that is mentioned in the Bill, namely, the sum of 1s. 2d. If this Bill is given effect to, it will create, in our opinion, a serious condition of affairs in the coal trade of the country. The President, in the course of his remarks, told us he was of opinion that there was less industrial trouble in the coal trade at the moment that we had in the spring of the present year, when the Commission sat, and when effect was given to certain of the Commission's findings. In my opinion, if this Bill were given effect to in its present form, it would simply mean the return of that industrial trouble that was apparent in the spring of the present year.
6.0 P.M.
There are several questions in connection with this bill that I would like to put to the President, or whoever is to reply later on to the criticisms that may be levelled against the Bill. He has told us that, so far as profits are concerned, the-provision will end on the 31st March next, and one of the questions I would like to put to him is this: Will the control of the coal trade be removed on that date? And if it is to be removed, if the Government are to cease to take any hand in controlling the industry after the 31st March, what system do they propose to put in the place of the present one? I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, according to the Interim Report of Mr. Justice Sankey and his colleagues who signed it, upon the evidence that had been given during the first inquiry, the present system of ownership and working in the coal industry stands condemned, and that some other system must be substituted for it. We have not had any clear indication up
to now of the nature of the system that the Government intend putting in the place of the present one, if control is to be completely removed after 31st March. Undoubtedly, some system will be required to take the place of the present one. As I have already pointed out, Mr Justice Sankey says that the present system stands condemned. Does the Government, or the House, or the country believe that in these circumstances the leaders of the Miners' Federation can advise their members in the various parts of the British coal field to return to a system that already stands condemned in the opinion of the Commission that was set up to go into the matter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I just heard, as I entered, what my right hon. Friend said. Undoubtedly the main reason for this Bill is the fulfilment of the pledge. We are, obviously, no longer bound by that pledge if those to whom we make it relieve us of it—if, on behalf of the Miners' Federation, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to say, "We do not wish you to fulfil that pledge by passing this Bill!"

Captain STANLEY WILSON: He has said it!

Mr. BRACE: If my right hon. Friend is putting that by way of direct question, it is necessary really for us to say that at the executive meeting to-day a specific resolution was carried objecting to the Bill upon entirely different grounds. We say that we want the Government to carry out their pledge, and they are not attempting to carry out their pledge in the way we think they ought to do.

Mr. ADAMSON: I have no objection to the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think he was present when I put the question that I was confirming at the moment of his entrance. I had just put a question to the President of the Board of Trade, and I want to put it to the Leader of the House if he is to reply later. Does the present system of Government control end on 31st March as well as the limitation of profits? As I asked the President, I now ask the Leader of the House, if the present system of control is to end, what system do you intend to take its place? You cannot go back to the old system. It stands condemned in the terms of the Report which you in this House pledged yourselves to give effect to
in the spirit and in the letter. We have seen some indication that the Government are more favourably disposed to adopt the plan suggested in the Report of Sir Arthur Duckham, a member of the Commission. If his system were put into operation it would mean setting up in the British coal fields a number of trusts. It would mean the establishment of some very big combines in the mining industry of the country.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Would it be as big as nationalisation?

Mr. ADAMSON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better let me deal with the subject in my own way. If what I say is the Government's idea, if that is the plan they intend to adopt in the place of the present system, I can tell them that the miners would rather continue under the old system than accept one of that character until they are able to secure the nationalisation of the mines. Not only are the miners up against the establishment of a system of the kind that is outlined in Sir Arthur Duckham's Report, but the coal-owners are as greatly opposed to it as the miners can be, because they say: "If you are to establish a system of that kind in the mining industry, we would rather that you faced now the question of nationalisation." The President of the Board of Trade gave us a very careful explanation of the manner in which profits are dealt with in this Bill. He did not condescend to state the figure. He told us that the Government would not be in a position to name the correct figure until the end of the financial year in March. Before the Leader of the House came in I pointed out that rumour had it that deputations of coal-owners had been waiting upon some of the leading members of the Government recently, and that they were reputed to have put the profit per ton at 2s. 4d. instead of 1s. 2d., and that that information was given to them with the view of modifying the opposition that was likely to be given to this Bill. We certainly do know from the limited amount of information which we have been able to get out of the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon, the profits that will accrue to the coal-owners under the terms of this Bill if passed. This Bill only limit the profits to one year, to 31st March next. I ask the Leader of the House if that was the idea in the mind of Mr. Justice Sankey at the time he issued his Report?

Mr. SONAR LAW: It says so in the Report.

Mr. ADAMSON: Limited for one year? If the position be examined from the point of view of the two Reports, I think it will be found that the period of time that was running in Mr. Justice Sankey's mind was three years—until the question of nationalisation could be arranged.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I could not give a pledge about a Report which came out three or four months afterwards.

Mr. ADAMSON: When the Leader of the House was dealing with the first Report he told us that he would give effect to it in the spirit and in the letter. He made a very careful explanation of what would be the future proceedings of the Commission. He certainly created the idea in our minds that as future Reports came along they would be favourably considered.

Mr. BONAR LAW: was understood to dissent.

Mr. ADAMSON: The Government, we were informed, does not approve of the limitation of profits. That was one of the things that the President in the course of his remarks this afternoon made perfectly clear.

Sir A. GEDDES: Direct limitation!

Mr. A DAMSON: I took it that the right hon. Gentleman did not approve of the limitation of profits.

Sir A. GEDDES: Direct.

Mr. ADAMSON: I was going to ask how the Government intended to give effect to the numerous pledges if that was the decision: how they were going to be able to give effect to these pledges given to the working classes, who in recent years have again and again been told that they were entitled to a greater share of the wealth earned by the united energies of the people than they have been able to secure up till now. How are they going to get that unless you have limitation of profits, not only in the mining industry, but in all the other parts of the industrial system? If we are to give to the working classes a higher standard of life than hitherto they have been able to obtain it can only be done by a limitation being placed on the profits of the employers.
The next point I want to put to the President, or the Leader of the House
is, will there be any limitation of prices placed upon the coal-owners after 31st March next? Will the Government's responsibility for the payment of the Sankey wage to the men, the increase of 2s. per day, cease after 31st March? The wages of the men can only be protected on their present basis through some system of pooling the profits. Under present conditions you have higher prices obtaining in the export part of the trade than in the home trade; you have higher classes of coal commanding higher prices in some districts of the home trade than you have in others. Unless there is some system of pooling we will be unable to protect the wages of the men on their present basis. Does the Government, or the House, expect the Miners' Federation, at the end of March to be prepared to enter into a series of fights in order to protect the wages of their members in the various districts with the variations that exist? No, Sir; I do not believe they will. I do not believe the Miners' Federation will be consenting parties to being attacked singly and overcome in detail. If they are to have a struggle, a fight, to protect the interests of the men, it will be a fight for protecting the wages of the whole of the men. It will not be conducted in any sectional manner
This Bill pretends to give effect, as I have already pointed out, to the Interim Report of Mr. Justice Sankey. Where, however, it gives effect to it on the one hand, in our opinion it takes away with the other. To give effect to it in that way is not carrying out the proposal in the spirit of the letter. We do not believe that Mr. Justice Sankey intended that the limitation of profit and prices and the present wages and the control of the industry was to end in one year. The settlement proposed in this Bill under those circumstances would be no settlement at all, and it would simply mean that you would have the fight renewed within the next three months. Therefore, I think we had better give more serious consideration to the matter when we are dealing with this Bill. I hope when the Leader of the House replies he will give us an answer to the following questions: Does this Bill end Government control of the industry on the 31st of March next, and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman say in specific and plain terms what system the Government intend to put in place of the present one? Does the limitation apply to prices after the 31st of March as well as to profits,
and does the 31st March end the Government's responsibility to the men for the payment of wages under the Sankey award? These are important matters so far as the mining section of the community are concerned, and so far as the Labour party in this House is concerned? Therefore, we would like before the discussion ends to have an answer in plain specific terms to the questions I have put. The Leader of the House has asked whether we want this Bill or not. I understand him to mean by that question if we do not want the Bill he will be prepared to withdraw it. I say frankly in reply to the question as to whether we want it or not it depends upon the nature of the answers which are given to the questions which I have put on behalf of the mining industry and the Labour party. We shall hear the right hon. Gentleman's reply, and then we shall quite frankly tell him what the attitude of the miners and the Labour party will be in regard to this Bill.

Lord R. CECIL: There is one observation made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down to which I find myself altogether out of agreement, and it is his statement that the position of the workmen could not be improved unless you limited the profits of the coal-owners. I respectfully express an entirely different opinion, and I even go so far as to say that as long as you preserve the present system you cannot improve the position of the workmen if you limit the profits. I did not, however, rise to enter into an economic discussion on this question, but I did so because I think the situation has been entirely changed by the speech of the President of the Board of Trade and by the information which has reached many hon. Members from other sources, namely, that the Labour party have resolved to vote against this Bill, and they have done so with the assent and approval of the Executive of the Miners' Federation. That may not be true, but that is the rumour going through the Lobby at the present moment. That leaves unofficial Members of this House in a very astonishing position, and certainly the Government are to be commiserated with in connection with the coal question, as they do not seem even by accident to hit upon the right thing to do. I was not in this country when the great coal crisis arose. I understand it was very urgent and the Government decided to deal with it by a Commission, over which they asked a
learned judge to preside. I think that was a profound mistake. When a learned judge is asked to decide a dispute between two parties no doubt he does it as well as any man could do it, but it is quite a different matter to asking him to lay down a policy for the organisation and management of a great industry like the coal industry.
The next great crisis arose over the increase in the price. I do not pretend to understand why the increase in price was made in that particular way. It certainly was a very strange proceeding, as subsequent events appear to have shown. Then came a declaration by the Government against all subsidies, and almost immediately afterwards 10s. per ton was taken off the price of coal. I do not know whether that had anything to do with the pending election. Now comes this Bill. As for the merits of this measure, there is no dispute in any part of the House, for it is universally agreed that it is a thoroughly bad Bill. The principle of the limitation of profits is rejected by everyone who has spoken except the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Adamson). Almost the most decisive effect of the Bill is in Clauses 4 and 5, which prevent any mine-owner doing anything to develop his mine without the consent of the Coal Controller. I cannot conceive of anything more destructive to the industry than that. No condemnation could be more whole-hearted than that which fell from the President of the Board of Trade, for he condemns the Bill most fully.
I agree very much with what has been said as to the great difficulty of the Government dealing with this question without having any really comprehensive policy. Ever since March last we have known that there is a very great crisis in this industry, and the Government have had a variety of proposals put forward for meeting it, but they have never decided exactly what they are going to do. Some of us asked repeatedly in the summer what the policy was going to be, but the Government declined to tell us, and just before we adjourned the Prime Minister made a comprehensive speech, to which we had constantly been referred as the declaration of the policy of the Government, and when the Prime Minister had finished, my impression of what the Government intended to do was still very far from concise, and we had no indication from the President of the Board of Trade as to what is to happen when this Bill
comes to an end on the 31st of March. The Leader of the Labour party said it is all very well to pass this as a makeshift, but unless you have a policy to deal with the situation you are only putting off the crisis, and it will arise again on the 31st of March.
There is only too much reason to think that the economic situation in Europe generally and also in this country may be even more grave and difficult in March than it is now. Why are we to put off a settlement until that date, because at that time we may be in even a more difficult position than we are at the present time? I understand the nationalisation policy, but I do not agree with it, because it means State management, and that I dislike most profoundly. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] I am not sure what hon. Members mean by nationalisation. If you are going to bring the State in and make the State finance the mines in this country then you must have State management. If you are going to allow the Treasury to finance the mines you will have to put yourselves under the bureaucracy of Whitehall. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think you will find in practice that that is the way it will work out if you ever get your way. Something has been said about pooling the profits, and a reference was also made to the pledge given by the Leader of the House on the 15th of March. I admit most fully the strength of that argument, although I do not go so far as the President of the Board of Trade. I cannot, however, admit that a statement by the Government binds the House of Commons. I cannot admit the analogy which the right hon. Gentleman drew between the leaders of a trade union, the members of the Government, and the Members of the House of Commons, because each Member of the House of Commons comes here charged with a public duty to do what he thinks right, in the first instance in the interests of his constituency, and in the second place in the interests of the country as a whole—or perhaps it is the other way round. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Perhaps the latter view is the one more generally accepted, and for that reason I cannot admit that the mere statement of a member of the Government is binding on the House of Commons.

Sir A. GEDDES: I did not say that the statement of the Government bound the House of Commons.

Lord R. CECIL: I do not think the distinction drawn between the supporters of the Government and the House of Commons and the House of Commons itself is a very practical one, but I do not wish to go into too much subtlety over this matter. I only enter that caveat because I think it is a sound doctrine that the House of Commons can be bound only after it has been consulted and has had an opportunity of expressing its opinions. Therefore, I wish to make that reservation. I am so far in agreement with my right hon. Friend, however, that I think, after the Government had made that very specific statement, and it had been assumed that something would be done, it would have been a very serious thing if they had not made an attempt to carry out their pledge. It would have led the miners to say, and to say with some truth, "That is what we say about the governing classes; they never can be trusted; they play fast and loose," and all the rest of it. It is very unfortunate the Government did not produce their legislation immediately afterwards, when the whole matter was fresh in the minds of the House of Commons. Therefore, although I do not think that I could have ever brought myself to vote for this Bill—it seems to me so bad—I do not think that I would have voted against it if the situation remained as is was when the Debate began.
Now comes a very different state of things We have had a positive statement from the Leader of the Labour party today that he does not regard this Bill as a fulfilment of the pledge, and that he cannot accept it as such. He went on to say, with my concurrence, at any rate, and I believe with the concurrence of an enormous number of the Members of the House, that he thought it was a very bad Bill. It did no good, and only postponed matters. He used arguments which were very well founded. What, then, becomes of my right hon. Friend's case? Why should we now vote for a Bill which we all believe to be a thoroughly bad Bill in order to fulfil a pledge given by the Government, when the other party to the pledge says, "We do not regard this as a fulfilment at all"? That is carrying Parliamentary prudery, I was going to say, to an extreme. Surely if the other party do not wish this Bill to be made law, there is only one course open to the Government, and that is to withdraw it. I quite admit that the position is very difficult, and it
may well be—I merely throw this out as a suggestion—that the best course would be to adjourn the Debate. We entered upon this Debate in one sense, and now an entirely new state of things has arisen. We ought to know fully what that new state of things really is, so as to enable us to consider the matter afresh. The House, I understand, sat till 6.30 this morning, and hon. Members would not be altogether sorry for a short Sitting to-day. There are other Orders, but I am not so sure that the Government might not have an access of generosity even at this moment. I do not want, however, to speak lightly. It is a very serious matter, and I venture to ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not think that the proper course would be to adjourn the Debate. I feel quite sure, if the Government insists upon going on in the present state of things, that a very large number of their supporters will find their consciences very severely strained if they have to vote for this Bill, which is not wanted by the miners, and which they themselves, every one of them, think a thoroughly unsound and disastrous measure.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Everyone who has listened to the Debate must have realised that we are getting into quite an interesting position. It has been suggested that this proposal to limit profits to 1s. 2d. a ton is in some way part of the miners' proposal. I cannot understand from where that idea comes. The Sankey award which was accepted by the Government and which they said they would carry into effect in letter and in spirit was not signed by a single representative of the miners who sat on that Commission. As a matter of fact, our representatives in their Interim Report went strongly, not for a limitation of profits, but for the nationalisation of the mines. We were on entirely different ground. In the second Report, Mr. Justice Sankey recommended that the 1s. 2d. should be continued for the three years which he suggested should run before State purchase took place. Our representatives on the Commission gave a very general assent to the terms contained in Mr. Justice Sankey's second Report, but on this particular question they said:
As we are in substantial agreement with the Chairman's Report, we think it unnecessary to
set forth any separate statement of our views, but in assenting to that Report we wish to emphasise the following points.
They then enumerated them, and on this particular question of the 1s. 2d. they said:
We think it important that whatever payment is made to the owners, nending the general acquisition of the mines, should not be computed upon the tonnage got.
Therefore, so far as our representatives who sat on the Commission and made a Report were concerned, not only did they not sign a Report in favour of this 1s. 2d., but they reported against this method of solving this part of the question. Whatever may be said for or against the proposal contained in the Report of Mr. Justice Sankey, it is not our Report, and it is not what we asked. We have asked for an entirely different thing, and we are to-day in precisely the same position as we have been all along. I do not understand what all the fury is about. I have heard statements made in this House that the coal-owners have been badly treated, and that they have not had such profits as they ought to have received. As far as I am able to judge from the statistics available, they have done very well indeed. On 1st December I asked a question in this House and received a reply. The question was:
If the President of the Board of Trade state the total profits, including royalties, made by the British coal-mining industry in each of the years 1908 to 1918, inclusive, and during the first six months of the present year, and. if he will state for each year how the aggregate-profits were divided between royalty-owners, mine-owners and the Government respectively."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1919, col. 119.]
I received a reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The figures contained in that reply are intensely interesting, and I should like to give them for the years before the War and the years during the War. We were told by witnesses who appeared before tire Commission that the five years ending 1913 were the best five years in the history of the industry and that the two years upon which the prewar profit standard is based were the best two years in the history of the industry. During those five years, 1909–13, the profits, including royalties and after allowing for wear and tear, were as follows: 1909, £14,700,000; 1910, £15,100,000; 1911, £13,140,000; 1912, £22,350,000; 1913, £26,980,000. During those five years the average profits, including royalties, amounted to £18,500.000 per annum. It was stated before the Commission, and it.
is fairly well corroborated in this reply, that from that sum must be deducted £6,000,000 as belonging to the royalty-owners. Therefore, according to this reply, you have about,£12,500,000 as the average profits of the coal-owners during those five years. The figure given before the Commission was about £13,000,000; the figure given by the President of the Board of Trade yesterday was £12,800,000, and the figure given here is about £12,500,000, so that there is not much in it in any case. Let us now look what the profits were during the War: 1914, £18,960,000; 1915, £31,160,000; 1916, £46,590,000; and 1917–18, £34,210,000. During those four years, therefore, they got an average of £32,730,000 as against an average of £18,500,000 in the pre-war period. Surely they have not done badly during the War. In each case, you have to deduct £6,000,000 a year on account of royalties.

Sir G. YOUNGER: Would not that be increased in the same period owing to the sliding scale?

Major WHELER: Is it not a fact that the rise in the royalties proportionate to the increase in the price of coal is an infinitesimal amount?

Mr. HARTSHORN: I have not any figures to show how that was modified. I am simply giving the figures supplied to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as being the figures the coal-owners themselves admit as their profits for the purposes of the Income Tax. I would like to give the figures after everything has been deducted. It is sometimes said, "It is true that they have had enormous profits, but the Excess Profits Duty has taken a big slice of them, there has been an increase in the Income Tax, and there has been the coal mines excess payments. All these items have taken so much from the coal-owners that they have been no better off and possibly worse off, during the War than they were before." This Return gives the actual profits received by the owners after deducting royalties, Mineral Rights Duty, Excess Profits Duty, Coal Mines Excess Payment, and Income Tax. In the last column you get the actual net profits of the coal-owners. Let us take the pre-war period and since. In 1909 their net profits were £8,591,000; in 1910, £8,846,000; in 1911, £6,571,005; 1912, £16,248,000; 1913, £20,464,000. During the War we got these figures, after making deductions for
Income Tax and everything else: 1914, £12,364,000; 1915, £21,522,000; 1916, £28,590,000; and 1917, £15,473,000.

Brigadier-General CROFT: What does the hon. Gentleman allow for the fact that the sovereign is now worth only 9s. 6d.?

Mr. HARTSHORN: Every right hon. and hon. Gentleman will be able to put his own valuation on the figures I have given. But they show that the coal-owners have received per annum, during the four years of war, profits enormously in excess of anything they got before the War, after they had paid everything in the form of royalties, and every other item. Now I come to the real position as to 1913. In 1912–13 we had the best two years in the history of the industry. What happened? Under the Control Agreement, the coal-owners were entitled to take the average of the best two of the last three years. Naturally they took 1912 and 1913, and so they have taken their basis for pre-war standard profits, the best two years they have ever had in their history; consequently all through the War, before the Government have been able to take anything to assist the finances of the country, the coal-owners have been able to maintain the abnormally high standard of profits which they secured during those two particular years. How did they come to have these exceptional profits in those two years? Chiefly because the miners in nearly every coalfield in Great Britain had in their Wage Agreement what is called the minimum and the maximum. We had got standard rates, but on the top of these we were entitled to a minimum and maximum percentage, and it did not matter how high the price of coal went, we got no more than the maximum percentage. During this period, although the price of coal went up enormously, the miners got not one cent out of it; the whole of the surplus prices went into the pockets of the owners, and they were able to establish a standard of profits which is far above the normal state of the industry, and have been able to maintain it all through the War before ever the tax-collector could come upon them for a single penny.
I do not think the coal-owners are playing the game in kicking up all this fuss about this attempt on the part of the Government to carry out what they regard as the pledge they gave to the miners in relation to the Sankey Award.
Surely everybody who was here in March last will know that that pledge was given not with a view to the limitation of profits at all, but with a view to coercing the miners. We had refused to accept the award. We had said we wanted 30 per cent. increase, and we were only offered 20 per cent. We had asked for a six-hour day and we were only offered a seven-hour day. Therefore we were not prepared to accept the Report. But that was not the only Report which was issued. There were three Interim Reports. The one the Government accepted was signed, I think, by only four members. There was another which was signed by six, and we said the Government had no right to set aside the Report of the six men and to pick and choose the one particular Report which suited them. The Leader of the House came down and said the Government were in a mess, that they had gone through Justice Sankey's Report, and they were going to stand by that Report against all comers, and in fact, if the miners would not accept it, let them put up a fight, and the Government were prepared to use all the resources of the State to compel them to accept it. We took a ballot vote of our members, and upon that vote we agreed to accept the Report, and to accept the Government decision. Why is it that the coal-owners, having regard to the very splendid time they have had all through the War, are kicking up this fuss at this moment because there is a proposal to limit their profits, not below what they were having before the War, but to fix a limitation at a substantially higher figure than they ever had before the War at any time in the history of the country, except one or two occasional years?
But that is not all. This is. 2d. is not all the profit that the coal-owners are being given. In the five pre-war years they got 1s. a ton profit. That was their average profit on the coal produced. But that 1s. a ton included all the profits they derived from coke and the by-products, and we were told in the evidence put before the Committee that the profits on coke and by-products were, at least, 6d. per ton, spread over the whole coal output of the country. If you take that basis, you are getting 1s. 2d. per ton plus, at least, 6d. per ton in the aggregate. But I am going to show that it is a much bigger sum, if you take the evidence put before
the Commission. In any case, you get. 1s. 8d. per ton, as against 1s. per ton before the War. Then we have certain other concessions made in this Bill which add somewhat to the 1s. 2d., which is the nominal amount; so that, so far as we on these benches are concerned, we think Mr. Justice Sankey, in fixing 1s. 2d., was absolutely fair to the colliery owners. We are not objecting to the provisions of this Bill on the ground of that 1s. 2d., and we are not opposing this Bill on the ground that the Government are carrying out their pledge in this respect; but we are opposing for other reasons which, in as few words as possible, I will endeavour to explain to the House.
The first thing I would like to mention is that one of the greatest objections which we have to this Bill is the period for which it is to run. This Bill comes to an end on the 31st March next. It does not in the least matter to us whether the 1s. 2d. is paid up to the end of March or not. That is too trivial to talk about. It leaves us cold. We are uninterested in it entirely, and if that is all that is meant by this part of the Sankey Award, as far as we are concerned, we have no interest in it. But we do not understand the Sankey Award to mean that, and I do not think, in view of what the Leader of the House said, that the award was to be accepted in spirit as well as in letter, that it is possible to read that interpretation into it. The Government take the opposite view. I am not going to find fault with them on that score, but we do say that if it is to be given this limitation we have no further interest in it. But we have other reasons for our attitude than the one that the 1s. 2d. is to come to an end then. The hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott) was very anxious to get an assurance from the Government that while the pledge is being carried out nothing more than the pledge shall be attempted in this legislation—that the Bill shall be limited to the pledge and nothing more. As far as we are concerned we are not very much troubled about the Bill not going beyond the pledge but we are anxious that the pledge should be redeemed. There is something more in the Sankey Award than the 1s. 2d., and I would like to read this paragraph:
We recommend the continuance of the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act, 1918, subject to certain suggestions indicated in our Report.
Do the President of the Board of Trade or the Leader of the House contend that that recommendation is carried out in this Bill? With that recommendation, that agreement goes on for six months after the War, but under this Bill, so far from continuing it it repeals it as from last April. That is one of the chief objections we have to this Bill. It is a vital objection. It is vital because we know that, once this Bill becomes an Act, when we reach the 31st of next March we shall have got into a state of chaos in this country which will be worse than anything ever experienced in the mining industry during the lifetime of any of us. It is for that that we are opposed to this Bill, and unless we can get some of these provisions changed, we shall certainly vote against the Bill.
7.0 P.M.
During the War, we have had an entirely changed method of dealing with the wages system as compared with pre-war practice. Before the War every coalfield built up its own wage system on what might be termed the economics of the district. If you have got a district where an inferior quality coal is being worked at a high cost, experience has taught us that the wage for that district could not be nearly as high as that in some of the more profitable coalfields. And so we had a district system of wages built up. But during the War we have gone into federation. The coalfields of Britain have gone together, and have received a flat-rate advance. We have had 5s. a day, in the form of 3s. war wage and 2s. Sankey award. By this Bill control ceases, or at any rate the agreement which makes control effective comes to an end, on the 31st March. That places the colliery-owners of this country in the position of going back to where they were before the War. The colliery-owners in some of the coalfields of this country will be obliged to do one of two things under this system: they must either raise the price of coal or close their collieries. The President of the Board of Trade recently reduced the price of coal for inland domestic consumption by 10s. a ton, simply because he was able to use the surplus that came from the export districts in order to make up the deficit. But if we are going to abolish the Coal Control Agreement, and the export districts are to run the show on their own, and the home consumption concerns are to be worked on their own, what is going to happen? A very substantial increase in
the price of coal is bound to take place in some of the home-consumption colliery districts, and we say that that means a very disastrous state of things as far as this country is concerned. But we know also that if you once abolish the policy of control, and get back to the old times, you will have in one part of Scotland an application from the owners for a reduction in wages, and from another part of Scotland an application—quite justifiable—for a very substantial advance in wages on prices alone. We can go down to South Wales to-morrow, on the selling price of export coal to-day, and demand a very substantial advance in wages. Before the War our wages have always been regulated according to the selling price of coal. To-day we see those miners who work in an exporting district exploiting the conditions that arise out of the War. Let us have a sort of general average, and let all the miners engaged in the industry have a little bit, instead of some having all and others none. We have gone on that basis for two or three years. If you attempt to revert on the 31st March, you will have applications for reductions in wages in some parts of the country, and you will have applications for advances in others. Of course, I do not believe at the moment that the Government intend to leave the mining industry where this Bill places it. The industry is in an impossible position under this Bill, but we want to know what is to follow. The right hon. Gentleman said that there will be certain Regulations after the 31st March. After the 31st of March is too late; whatever is done wants to be done before this Act terminates, otherwise we shall be in a very serious situation.
This matter was discussed this morning at the Miners' National Executive, and the feeling was that the Government had submitted to the pressure that has been exerted upon them, by the representatives of industry in this House, to abolish control, to get back to the old days of private ownership without any limitation of profits, and to put us back where we were before the War. I certainly think this Bill does that, in the absence of anything else, and we have nothing else before us. The executive certainly was bound to come to a decision as to this Bill with this Bill only before them. I think this House may take it—I do not say it as any sort of threat, and I hope it will not be taken in that spirit—that the conditions that will
develop after the 31st March will be of such a character that the Miners' National Executive, no matter how well-intentioned they may be, will find it absolutely impossible to avoid chaos and a terrific eruption in the mining industry of this country, as the result of what will come into operation after this Bill comes to an end. That being the case, we say it is infinitely better that we should have a continuance of the Coal Control Agreement until such time as the Government have made up their minds as to some sort of policy, and let us know what their policy is to be. We, of course, stand for nationalisation, and do not hide it at all. We are prepared to do all that we possibly can to induce the nation and the Government to accept it. If they do not, then we shall get something, but in any case we shall get nowhere from this Bill.
With reference to Clauses 9 and 10 of this Bill, if hon. Members will read those Clauses they will find that they aim at continuing the fatal policy that has been pursued by the Board of Trade up to now—the policy of maintaining silence and secrecy, of hiding the facts of the industry, and not letting anybody know what is going on in the industry. Not only shall we not have the facts published, but we shall not even be allowed to go and talk about them or to see them until we have sworn a declaration of secrecy. That is the sort of idea that has dominated the Government's mind. I do not care what their future policy is to be; if they bring that kind of idea into it it will fail, whatever it is. May I just read what the Commissioners say about this in their second Report, after they have made a very exhaustive investigation of the whole situation? We have had four Reports, and it is remarkable what unanimity exists on this particular question. As far as this one point is concerned, there is no division of opinion among all the Commissioners. Mr. Justice Sankey says:
The following statistics ought to be made public: The quarterly financial return from each district; the output from each district; the numbers of persons employed above and below ground; the cost per ton of getting and distributing coal, showing the proportions due to wages, material, management, interest and profit; the amount of coal produced per man per shift; and the amount of absenteeism.
That is to say, the facts of the industry ought to be made public, and our representatives were in substantial agreement with the chairman as to that. Then we
had another Report, signed by three colliery-owners and two other captains of industry, and they say this, in dealing with the scheme that was submitted by the Coal-owners' Association:
The authors of the scheme contend that want of knowledge with respect to prices, costs, and profits, and the absence of machinery conferring upon the workers opportunities for obtaining information and influencing the conditions under which they work, have been to a great extent the cause of the existing discontent.
The coal-owners themselves say:
Machinery ought to be set up. This information ought to be made available,
and yet we get in this Bill, "Keep it dark."
Then there is one other Report, and that appears to be the Report upon which the Government say they are going to build their policy. Let us see what that gentleman said about it—
It is essential that there should be complete publicity as to the operations and financial results of the coal industry. The Ministry of Mines should be expressly charged with the duty of publishing, not less than once a year, figures showing the cost of getting coal in each of the districts of the country, and the proportions chargeable to material, wages, general expenses, interest, profits, and other general items.
In other words, let the mine-owners, the miners and the general public know the facts relating to the mining industry. I want to say, as a Labour leader, and as one who has had a considerable experience of dealing with wage disputes, that I have on scores of occasions, told the general managers with whom I have done business, "You ought to let these facts be known to the workmen." If you only let the workmen know the facts you will get rid of much suspicion, and I am prepared to admit that there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the minds of the workmen, and also in the public mind, both as to the profits of the owners, the wages of the miners, the cost of production, and everything else. You sometimes hear it said, "There you are, the collieries get half-a-crown a ton, and we pay £2 10s. What is happening to the difference?" To a practical man the explanation is simple, but these facts are not made known as they ought to be, and this Bill says, "Oh, no, keep it dark." We have had enough trouble since last July on this score. Has anybody been able to get at the facts? Has anybody been able to ascertain what really are the facts of the mining industry? Nobody at
all. And now we are told that it is to be come a closed box, and that nobody is to have any access to this information. We are anxious to see a settlement of the mining industry on terms that will enable us to get a very much larger output of coal, so that a filiip may be given to the industries of this country, and yet here is the Government coming on with another policy that is bound to lead to disaster. We are not being asked what we think about it, nor are the coal-owners; we are getting it dumped on us. We want to give a warning to the House and to the country. If this Bill passes, and the state of things materialises which it aims at setting up after the 31st March, an impossible position will have been created in this country such as none of us can control, and such as may have very fatal consequences.

Sir E. CARSON: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I have not risen to discuss the main features of the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, nor, indeed, am I competent to do so, but I should like to know where the House stands at the present moment. I am one of those who approached the consideration of this Bill, when it, was printed, not from the point of view of the coal-owner, nor from the point of view of the employé, but from the general point of view of the community at large; and I am bound to say, frankly, that I thought it one of the most mischievous Bills that I had read for a long time. In the first place, I do not believe in this attempt to guard against Bills being precedents by statements in the Preamble or statements in this House. Every Bill creates a series of circumstances and results over which you have no control. It is the circumstances and the results, and not the statements in this House which will regulate whether a Bill is a precedent in the future or not. I also dislike it for this reason. I believe any such Bill as this inevitably leads to nationalisation. You cannot create these dual interests and these controls without it being said fit the end: "This is a vicious system, and we must get rid of it, and the only way to do that is to buy out the owners and nationalise the industry."
On the other hand, when I read the memorandum attached to the Bill I found that the Government had given a pledge. Of course it is a truism that the pledge does not bind the House, but for the
Government to break the pledge, under the circumstances in which we are met above all things, is a matter to make one pause before you try to force them to break a pledge, and I should like hon. Members to consider what it would be if you had an agitation, which is at any time ready to break out, and one of the excuses was that the Government had made a pledge in a different atmosphere from what we have now, and had then gone back on it. I do not think even my objections to the Bill would have been strong enough in my own mind to enable me to vote against it and thus try to make the Government break their pledge. But as I look at the situation now I think that is entirely changed. Hon. Members opposite, whom I may call the other party to the arrangement, say this carries out no pledge as I understand it. The hon. Member (Mr. Hartshorn) has said the passing of this Bill will be disastrous. I should like to know under these circumstances where we stand. What is the good of our going on discussing this matter unless we know now what the effect of the different position is upon the intentions of the Government. What is the good of our arguing this, that, and the other about the Bill when we do not know whether the Government are affected by the fact that their attempt to fulfil what they believe to be a pledge has now been repudiated? I do not think you can carry on business under these circumstances, and I think at the earliest moment the House requires now the clearest guidance from the Government of how they view the situation and the clearest intimation how they view the fact of the fulfilment of their pledge being now repudiated by hon. Members opposite. In order that we may have an opportunity of hearing such an answer from the Government, though I should be prepared to withdraw it if one of the Government gets up, I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am, like my right hon. Friend and others, in a difficulty, and if it were not for the near approach of the end of the Session I should have no hesitation whatever in moving that the Debate be adjourned till we see where we are, because what the hon. Member (Mr. Hartshorn) has said entirely alters the situation. He is a member of the Miners' Federation. It was to that Federation that we gave the pledge, and the fact that it cannot be broken by a decision of the Labour party
is obvious for this reason, that it is not merely a pledge to the Miners' Federation. The miners took a ballot as to whether or not they would accept our proposal. The ballot decided that they would accept it, and, obviously, no decision of the Labour party, as a Labour party, can free us from the pledge we gave under those circumstances. But now that the hon. Member (Mr. Hartshorn) has said he prefers the continuation of the agreement—it is quite obvious that he is speaking for the Miners' Federation. I can take that as being the view of those to whom I gave the pledge?

Mr. HARTSHORN: Certainly.

Mr. BONAR LAW: That really puts the matter in an entirely different position. The difficulty in which I stand is this: It is not my fault, nor I think anyone's fault. I think we are free to reconsider the position from the point of view of the pledge. I hope the representatives of the Miners' Federation will agree with me there. But all the finance of the year since 20th March has been based on this method of dealing with it. The result would be that if we went back to the Coal Mines Agreement we should get into a financial position which may mean an enormous loss to the Treasury. This whole question of control is not liked by anyone, and it got into such a position that the coal-masters are not allowed to sell their coal at a fixed price. Control is not confined to that. If one coal-master wants to sell coal at 60s. for export and his colliery is in such a situation that the Coal Controller says it is a waste of energy and of transport facilities to send it for export, and he must sell it inland at a price perhaps something like half what he could get by selling it for export, see what follows. Under the Coal Mines Agreement Act the individual coal-owner gets whatever profit he can make on the price at which he is permitted to sell, less the percentage which he gives for the Excess Profits Tax. Take, for instance, big colliery owners in Scotland or the North of England. They can sell and have been selling the whole of their output at these absolutely monopoly prices. They get into their own pockets all the advantage of this monopoly price, less what is taken from them by the Excess Profits Duty, which is now reduced to 40 per cent. On the other hand, the coal-masters in the inland areas, who have to sell to a particular market at
fixed prices, are in many cases selling below what it absolutely costs them to produce the coal. See what that means. By the arrangement on which this has been financed it is all put into a pool. The coal-master who sells at the export prices does not get an advantage through the luck of his being allowed to choose that market, but it all goes into the pool, and all the coal-masters who are under dictation, and are not allowed to sell freely, are put on the same footing and get the same share of the profits. If you go back to the Coal Mines Agreement, this at once follows. The coal-owners who are making these enormous profits, which neither the Government nor the House nor the-country would have allowed them to make with these monopoly prices, will be-allowed to keep these profits, and the Treasury will be called upon to make good the losses which are incurred by the inland collieries.

Sir C. CORY: I think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. Under the Coal Control Agreement they only got, before the Finance Act, 5 per cent. of the excess profits. Now, under the new arrangement with regard to excess profits, they only get 15 per cent.—that is, 10 per cent. more—and not the whole.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I never said they did get the whole. If you take a price twice that at which coal is selling inland, and allow the coal-owner who gets that price to have his pre-war standard, and, in addition, take 15 per cent, of the excess, he is obviously getting, at these absurd monopoly prices, in spite of that limitation, enormous profits.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend that they shall have that after 31st March?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No; certainly not. I am in this difficulty. I should at once adjourn the Debate if we had longer time, but the finance of the year must be allowed to be arranged. If we put this off till the House met again it would be very difficult to do it, and I am afraid in the interval the Treasury would be called upon to meet the losses incurred by these inland collieries. It is very difficult to agree to an Adjournment in these circumstances.

Captain S. WILSON: You cannot pass the Bill this Session.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Once the Second Reading is passed everyone, mine-owners and men, will regard the principle as absolutely settled, and we shall get the money in from the Treasury. That is the position. I should be very glad if I had the opportunity to argue this on its merits, but I cannot do that. I must deal only with the Adjournment. In view of the change in the situation, which is created by the fact that the representatives of those to whom we gave the pledge say that they would prefer the Coal Mines Agreement, I do not think I could ask the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill now. What I wish to do, and I hope the House will assist us in this, is to have the exact financial effect of the change examined. Let us see exactly what going back to the agreement would mean from the point of view of fairness to the coal-owners and fairness to the Treasury. I hope it may be possible to do that between now and tomorrow. I am afraid that we cannot go back to the Coal Mines Agreement, and that we must have some other method of meeting the situation. What I am going to do now is to accept the Motion for Adjournment on this understanding, which I am sure the House will give, that if we find it necessary to ask for a Second Reading of this Bill to come on at a later stage, they will take into account the hours we have spent on it and try to reduce the discussion in consequence.

Mr. BRACE: I feel very much like sympathising with my right hon. Friend. He seems to have got himself and the Government into a rather awkward situation.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it is the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends who have got us into this difficulty.

Mr. BRACE: I wish I could take it to ourselves, as mere modest politicians, that we were able to get the Government into an awkward situation. We have not, I assure him. It will be a mistake for the Government to take the view that we are opposing this Bill because we are not in favour of the limitation of profits. We are most strongly in favour of the limitation of profits. I hope the House will pay us the compliment that we have some regard for the welfare of our country, and when we came to examine this Bill to-day we found a satiation created that really staggered us. Under Clause 13 the old order passes, and if this Bill
was allowed to become law we should on 31st March, 1920, be faced with a condition of chaos, a condition of things in the, mining industry reaching a revolutionary atmosphere. Let that not be forgotten. That is the position. This Bill wipes away all the conditions of employment which exist now. What is the Government going to put in place of the present control? We shall have no system for regulating wages, no system for regulating profits, no system for managing the industries. The result would be that on 31st March, if we allowed this Bill to pass into law, we should have no system under which our workmen's wages would be regulated, and we should be faced with a general strike in the mining community. That is why we are opposing the Bill, not because we object to the limitation of profits. We say to the Government, "You ought not to live from hand to mouth in matters of this kind. You ought not to be operating your Parliamentary policy upon the principle or from the standard of expediency." The Government ought to have a clean-cut programme and proposal for dealing with the situation. If they want to abolish the control, if they want to abolish the old order, then they ought to come to the House with their new order. Under this Bill, automatically, the present arrangement comes to an end on 31st March, 1920, and there is nothing to take its place.
The War did much more than destroy Kings and Emperors. The War has created an absolutely new school of economic thought amongst the workmen of this country. They will not stand by, and see the old condition of things being continued, and they must be given to understand quite clearly where they stand and where the Government stands. If the Government comes down to the House with a Bill of this kind, they must also come down with a scheme to take the place of the present economic order which is in operation in the mining industry. If my right hon. Friend is going to take the Adjournment with a view to preparing the scheme which is to take the place of the existing order on 31st March, we agree to the Adjournment, and if he will come down and say, "At last, not because we like it, but because of the pressure of economic circumstances, we have been driven to adopt nationalisation," we shall think that the Adjournment will have been of great national value. In any ease, I must make it quite clear to my right hon Friend that whenever he comes
down with this Bill, whether it is to-night, to-morrow, next week, or next Session, unless it is accompanied with a clean-cut, understandable scheme under with the mines of this country are to be conducted, we shall oppose this Bill upon these grounds. We dare not allow this Bill to become law. We dare not allow such a condition of things as I have described to be created, affecting the great mining community, with more than 1,000,000 resolute fighting men, and the conditions under which they work. These are the reasons why the Miners' Federation came to the -resolution they did. They say:
The reason why we cannot accept this Bill is not because we are against limitation of profits by law, but because this Bill contains no provision for working the coal mines of the United Kingdom or regulating workmen's wages or limiting coal-owners profits after March. 1920.
That is why we are opposing the Bill, and I should mislead my right hon. Friend if I allowed him to take the Adjournment under the impression that if he comes down to-morrow or next week with this Bill that we shall not oppose it. We shall relentlessly protest, under the opportunity which this Bill gives us, against allowing the old order to pass without the Government coming down with a clean-cut programme which will establish the new order in such a way that everybody will understand it. In saying this, I speak not only for the Miners' Federation but I speak for the Labour party, and I appeal to the Government to let us have some kind of understandable, clean-cut programme for the management of this great industry, which has reached a state of chaos and confusion that it is a danger to the State and it is becoming more dangerous day by day. It is no use simply to talk about this Bill as the redemption of a pledge. We ask the Government to redeem their pledge upon nationalisation. That is the- only redemption of a pledge that will meet the situation, in the opinion of the Labour party and of the Miners' Federation.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman not put this matter to the issue now? It seems to be perfectly clear from what the last speaker has said on behalf of the Labour party that they are ready to wreck this Bill now and at any other time. The essence of the economic and industrial situation at the present time is that we should have a clean-cut pro-
gramme, and if the programme embodied in this Bill is the best that the Government have to offer, the sooner the issue is settled the better. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to press on with the Bill or scrap it, and not to postpone it. It is in the interest of getting something done that I appeal to the Government to stand by this Bill.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would like to appeal to the House, now that we have agreed to the Adjournment, not to take tip further time by discussion. I want to point out to the hon. Member who spoke last that it is not so simple a matter as he seems to think. This Bill was really introduced purely as an interim measure. It is nothing else. It was brought in entirely in accordance with the pledge we have given. There is no object in pressing on with this Bill in this form unless it satisfies those to whom we gave the pledge on the one hand, or unless it, is necessary on account of our having worked so long on this system to do this for the sake of our financial arrangements. I should be very sorry to do that. It is not a case of having pressure put upon us by the industrial side, as was said by one hon. Gentleman. I do not think anyone, including hon. Gentlemen opposite, likes limitation of profits or limitation of the share which the owner gets which assumes a form which takes away all incentive. I cannot imagine anyone liking that, and we only agreed to it because it was to meet, an emergency. It is impossible that we could take an issue upon that as our policy. We had to get rid of our undertaking in regard to the Interim Report of the Sankey Committee before we could attempt to bring before the House a further policy for dealing with this industry. We have to do that in one way or another. I hope it may become possible, perhaps by some agreement with the coal-owners, since the Miners' Federation take no interest in the matter, to arrange the finance without going on with this Bill

Mr. HARTSHORN: We do take an interest.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I know they take an interest in the coal-owners not getting profiteering profits, but since they do not take any interest in the method I hope it may be possible by agreement to get our financial arrangements made without proceeding with this Bill. It would not be right for the House to go away with the impression that this Government or any
conceivable Government, if the state of things in the coal market continues as it is to-day, is going to allow control to disappear on the 31st March. That is absolutely unthinkable.

Mr. HARTSHORN: It does under the Bill.

Mr. BONAR LAW: It does, unless another Bill conies. It is no use having any disputes about that. What the House wants to know is the attitude of the Government on this point, and I say that that in the view of the Government is an unthinkable proposition. The price of coal to-day is a monopoly price, which is due directly to the War. If it was left to the free play of the market I do not think there is any doubt, in view of the fact that we must, if we have any money at all, buy coal, that the price of inland coal would rise to a figure which would make the whole nation rise in indignation. That is a matter with which we have got to deal apart from other considerations. It is easy to say, "Why have you not got some cut-and-dried scheme?" but that is not so easy. Here are conditions which are changing from week to week. We are blamed for the fact that we put on 6s. in one week and took off 10s.—though a different kind of 10s.—another week. My Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil), however wicked he thinks we are, does not think that the head of the government is stupid in electioneering, and if the object of taking off the 10s. was electioneering, he would scarcely have done what he actually did—that is, after discussing for two or three days, coming to a decision after four by-elections had taken place. So I think that we may dismiss that. The whole of the difficulty is this: It is not the want of clearness of my right hon. Friend. He was told by his accounting authority that the 6s. was necessary in order to get a balance between profit and loss. He may have been right or wrong, but we offered the hon. Gentlemen opposite the appointment of a Committee. The Committee could have reported whether it was right or wrong. Then, owing largely to the American strike, the price of export coal rose to a figure that no one could have foreseen. You have got to deal with changing situations, and I can only say that not merely my right hon. Friend but the Government realise that we must try to get some stability in this matter, and I, for one, am thankful, and I think it was necessary, that there should be an interval
at the end of the Session which will give us all some kind of chance to have time to think about these things and to have some proposals to give to the House of. Commons when we reassemble.

Sir C. CORY: I claim the indulgence of the House to correct what I think was an unintentional misleading of the House by the right hon. Gentleman as to the export profits of coal. The coal-exporting collieries do not get anything more than the pre-war standards.

Mr. HARTSHORN: I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that he is very firm about allowing these firms' profits to go into the coal-owners pockets, and he says that, since we do not take any interest in it, he will probably be able to make arrangements with the coal-owners themselves. Our case is that you can get all that under the Sankey award if you will apply the Sankey award. All that it requires to be done is this. Mr. Justice Sankey says
we recommend the continuance of the Coal Mines Agreement Confirmation Act, 1918, subject to certain alterations indicated in our Report.
The 1s. 2d. is one of the modifications, which he proposes in that agreement. We-say: Continue the agreement with that modification until you have got your coal policy determined upon. There is no reason why that should not be carried into, effect, and it is only because you are not carrying out the recommendations of the Sankey award and are discontinuing the agreement, against the recommendations, that we are opposing this Bill. If you are prepared to adopt the Sankey recommendations, you are out of your trouble and we will cease to oppose this Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (WAR ADDITION) AMENDMENT BILL.—

[Progress, 9th December.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of Additional Weekly Sum Payable under 7 and 8 Geo.5. c. 42.)

As from the commencement of this Act the additional weekly sum payable under the Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Act, 1917 (in this Act referred to as "the War Addition Act"), shall, in the case of a workman who at the time when any payment falls due under that Act is of the age of twenty-one-
years or upwards, instead of being a sum equal to one-quarter of the amount of the weekly payment, be a sum equal to three-quarters of the amount of the weekly payment.

Amendment proposed [9th December]:Leave out the words
in the case of a workman who at the time when any payment falls due under that Act is of the age of twenty-one years or upwards.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."—[Mr. Adamson.]

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): The Debate on this Amendment was adjourned when it became apparent that there was a misunderstanding in regard to the extent of the arrangement which the Home Office believed to be reasonable between the Miners' Federation on the one hand and the Mining Association on the other, and in accordance with the arrangement we made that evening the parties have been to the Home Office, and it became apparent that there was a misunderstanding. To make a long story short, the Government have decided to advise the House to accept this Amendment. We have done so because it would be unwise to prolong the period of uncertainty which prevails until such a measure as this is passed. Therefore it becomes most important to get this measure on the Statute Book. I have seen a certain number of the people concerned, though not all. But I have seen the representatives of the Accident Offices Association, and it is largely because of the patriotic attitude which they have adopted that it becomes possible without further reopening the question with those whom we negotiated before to accept this Amendment. The Accident Offices Association have informed us that they can accept the increased liability caused by the removal of the twenty-one years' limit without any additional premium. As I informed the House on a previous occasion, they have also undertaken to meet the increased charges that will at once become payable when this Act passes, so far as the men at present receiving compensation are concerned, and they are doing so without any increased charge. I think that that is an important consideration, and having regard to the necessity of getting this measure through, I trust that the Committee will support the Government in accepting the Amendment.

Mr. ADAMSON: I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman has seen his way to
accept this Amendment. It brought us face to face with a rather serious difficulty in connection with this addition to the Workmen's Compensation Act. However, the statement which the hon. Gentleman has just made relieves the situation to a very large extent, and we are very much indebted indeed to him for it.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, to leave out the words "three-quarters" and insert instead thereof the word "twice."
The object of this Amendment is to make an effort to deal with the necessities of those who are in receipt of this workmen's compensation in view of the increased cost of living. The Bill provides for increasing by 75 per cent. over the pre-war rate the compensation payable. As is well known, the cost of living has increased by over 100 per cent. At the moment it is standing at 122 per cent. over the pre-war rate.. It will be very difficult for those in receipt of workmen's compensation, which has only been increased to the extent of 75 per cent., with the increased cost of living standing at at least 115 per cent. I move this Amendment in the hope that we may get similar consideration as in the last case from the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State himself.

8.0 P.M.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I hope that my right hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. The whole question, as he knows, has been one of considerable discussion and discussion of various interests concerned. Of course, one of the chief interests concerned is that of those responsible for paying this money. As my hon. Friend has said, the insurance companies, who are the persons who will actually make the payments, have behaved in a very broad-minded way. They have accepted certain premiums in order to meet changed provisions. Now we have accepted the position that the twenty-one years' limit shall not be imposed, and that, of course, increases the liability which the insurance companies are bound to undertake for the same premiums. We are now asked to put in words which would increase very largely the liability of the insurance companies. It would increase very largely the number of cases in which the man would get just as much if ill as he would if working.
There would be no incentive to get well and no incentive to return to work again. I am quite sure hon. Members opposite will appreciate what I say when I state that, having discussed these matters with the insurance companies who are liable, we could not possibly accept an Amendment which would add very substantially to their liabilities. If this were carried it would be very difficult to know what our position would be, having regard to the fact that we have made these terms with the insurance companies.

Mr. SPENCER: I am very sorry that the Home Secretary cannot accept this Amendment. It is a very modest request and one which undoubtedly is overdue. Before the War began the maximum sums payable for compensation were totally inadequate, and that inadequacy has been very much emphasised during the War owing to the increased cost of living. The condition of many working men whose recovery from an accident has been protracted has been very pitiful; in many cases they have had to pawn furniture and other things in order to keep the home going. The Amendment would have extended compensation only to £2, instead of 35s. It would have been a slight advance for the sufferer. I think the Home Secretary made one slip when he said that if this was accepted the effect would be that some men would actually get as much by staying at home as they would get when at work. The Home Secretary is a lawyer, and I give way to him on points of law. But if I understand the Act aright, the only thing a man would be entitled to would be £2 if that sum represented half his wages. That being the case, the criticism of the Home Secretary is not well founded. There is another serious aspect of the question. Owing to the fact that the compensation paid to these workmen has been so very limited there has been a demand made upon the Poor Law of this country to assist them in their destitution. It is very undesirable that the Poor Law should have to come to the relief of the employer in keeping a man when he has met with a very serious accident, and at a time when he certainly needs more rather than less assistance. The most deplorable aspect of that side of the question is that the man immediately becomes a pauper and loses his rights as a citizen.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I regret very much that the Home Secretary will not accept the Amendment. He is certainly under a misaprehension in stating that the workman, by receiving £2 a week compensation, will be receiving as much or nearly as much as he would receive if he were working. I am speaking about my own industry, the steel industry. The men in that industry work under sliding scales, and in some districts the pay is from 100 to 120 per cent. above the pre-war rate. If we take as illustration a man earning £3 per week in pre-war time, to-day, as the result of the sliding scale, he is picking up £6 per week. It is ridiculous to suggest that a, man so employed would remain home after an accident merely to pick up.£2 per week for being idle when he could pick up £6 a week for working. The statement of the Home Secretary on that point will not bear investigation. There is another point that the Home Secretary has not taken into consideration. We on the Labour benches have some experience of the men who suffer as the result of an accident. I have been at home for three months, and even for six months, at a stretch as a result of an accident, and I guarantee that it was far more, costly to keep me at home when I was ill than it was to keep me when I was working. This extra expense is inevitable when men are kept at home through no fault of their own. I know some insurance companies think that a man purposely seeks an accident in the works simply to pick up the compensation. In view of the appeal made from these benches, I hope the Home Secretary will reconsider the matter and increase the compensation as the Amendment suggests.

Major BAIRD: I do not think that hon. Gentlemen who support this Amendment quite appreciate how far it will carry them. It is, indeed, the fact that a man under the proposal advanced by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adamson) would get considerably more than his wages. I am not sure whether the Amendment clearly gives expression to the intention of the right hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Members will note the latter part of the Clause with their Amendment included, it would read as follows:
instead of being a sum equal to one-quarter of the amount of the weekly payment, be a sum equal to twice the amount of the weekly payment.
The "weekly payment" is the technical expression used to represent the weekly
payment made under the 1906 Act, which is 50 per cent. of the weekly wage up to a maximum of £1. If you make it twice the weekly payment, a man whose wage is £2 would be getting a weekly payment of £1, and twice the weekly payment would be £2. The man whose weekly wage is £2 would be drawing £3 as compensation. So I am informed. Hon. Gentlemen shake their heads, and that makes it clear to me that that is not their intention. None the less, I am advised that that would be the effect of what has been proposed in the Amendment.

Mr. SPENCER: It may be bad drafting, but our intention is that where a man is now entitled to £1 maximum compensation, and his earnings are £2, he shall be entitled to £2 instead of the £1. If his earnings were £4 he would be entitled to £2.

Major BAIRD: That would alter the whole basis of the compensation, I think. It would mean removing the present minimum of and giving a man 50 per cent. of his wages. I can only remind hon. Gentlemen of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We cannot at this time of day re-open this question to that extent. May I also remind hon. Members of the extreme urgency of this question, and that there is now sitting a Departmental Committee which is going most thoroughly into the whole matter. That Committee will report early next year, and the Government will then be in a position to bring in legislation to take the place of this measure, or if they so decide put forward this measure as part. It is recognised that the present position with regard to compensation is not satisfactory. At any rate, I beg hon. Members not to press the point now, but to accept the assurance that this is a temporary measure.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words
and such sum shall also be payable to any person or persons who are entitled to compensation in respect of the death of a person upon whom he or they were dependent, whether or not such compensation has been or is paid in a lump sum.
The worst-hit section of our people in connection with workmen's compensation payment are undoubtedly the widows and the dependants of the men who had had the misfortune to lose their lives.
Neither in the amending Bill of 1917, nor in this Bill, is there any provision made for any increase on the maximum amount of compensation payable to the dependants of a workman who meets with death in an accident. They, like every other section, have to meet the increased cost of living, while they receive the same compensation as in 1914. That places them in great difficulty, as it means that the compensation is really worth less than half what it was worth in 1914. I think that is an aspect of this question which deserves serious and favourable consideration. I do not see any justification for this section of our people being left out, and I think it is a scandal that no attempt has been made, either in this Bill or the Act of 1917, to improve the conditions of the very worst paid section of our people. I hope the Home Secretary will see his way seriously to consider this Amendment.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: May I also express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman accept this Amendment in the interests of the widows and dependants of the men who, unfortunately, meet with death in their industry? I can quite understand there may be difficulties at the end of a Session in making so big a change. It is very much to be regretted if those difficulties do exist, and in that case I hope-the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give an assurance that this most important matter will be dealt with very early in the new Session, because it cannot be denied that there is very grave hardship suffered by these poor people.

Mr. SHORTT: I hope this Amendment will not be pressed for very much the same reasons as I mentioned on the last Amendment. Whether it is within the scope of the Bill or not I am not quite sure. The amending Bill only dealt with incapacity, and not with death. But however that may be, may I remind hon. Members that there is, at this moment, sitting a Committee which is going into a number of these questions. This is purely a temporary measure, and, as soon as we have the Report of that Committee, steps will at once be taken to put the questions concerned on a more satisfactory measure. This is simply an Amendment of the Act of 1917, and provides for an additional payment to the weekly payment. It does not provide for the payment of the lump sum. Therefore this is introducing rather more than the Bill attempted to do. It
would involve very extended liability, and it would be a liability which it would not be fair of me to accept, having regard to the arrangements I made. The whole question will be dealt with as soon as the Committee reports.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the deliberations of that Committee be suspended by the Prorogation? Is it a Committee of this Mouse?

Mr. SHORTT: It is a Departmental Committee.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Then it will not be interfered with.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words
and such sum shall also be payable to any workman who is at any time during the period for which the War Addition Act continues in force entitled during partial incapacity to a weekly payment by way of compensation.
This deals with a section of persons who, in consequence of injury, are entitled to compensation, but who have so far recovered as to be able to do light work, and are only entitled to receive partial compensation. There is no provision hero to increase that; and in consequence those people are very badly hit owing to the increased cost of living. That is an unfair position, and I think it is incumbent on the Government to remedy it at the earliest possible moment. I hope we may be met in a more generous spirit with respect to this Amendment than we have been with regard to the two previous Amendments.

Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid this is an entire departure from the Act of 1917, which dealt only with total incapacity, while this Bill is simply for the purpose of altering the figure which was put in by the Act of 1917. On that basis we have conducted all our negotiations and arrived at all our calculations, and on which the insurance companies arrived at their calculations. It would make the matter extremely difficult if you were to bring in the whole of the partially-insured people as well as those suffering total incapacity, and the additions would be simply enormous. Therefore, I hope the Amendment will not be pressed. I am sure we all want to get this Bill, which does bring relief to some people. The time is very short, and if I
had to reopen negotiations it would simply mean losing the Bill this Session.
Amendment negatived.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 (Extension of Right to Additional Sum to Persons Entitled to Compensation tinder the Workmen's Compensation Acts 1897 and 1900) and 3 (Commencement and Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported.
As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of Additional Weekly Sum Payable under 7 and 8 Geo. 5. c. 42.)

As from the commencement of this Act the additional weekly sum payable under the Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Act, 1917 (in this Act referred to as "the War Addition Act"), shall, instead of being a sum equal to one-quarter of the amount of the weekly payment, be a sum equal to three-quarters of the amount of the weekly payment.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move to leave out the words "commencement of this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "first day of September, 1919."
On the Committee stage I moved a somewhat similar Amendment. My object in moving this Amendment, both in Committee and on Report, is that there may be some little recompense given to those in receipt of compensation for accidents for the very hard time they have been going through within the last two or three years. As I have pointed out in connection with other Amendments, the cost of living has been gradually rising until it has reached well over 100 per cent. The only addition to the compensation payable that has been made up to the present is an addition of 25 per cent. over the pre-war rate made in 1917. That section of our people who have been in receipt of workmen's compensation consequently have been meeting the increased cost of living with an increase of 25 per cent. on the compensation paid to them. This, as some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, has entailed great hardships upon them, and it would be some little recompense, it would in some little way help them to redeem the miserable position that many of them find themselves in to-day if we were to bring this increase into operation on the 1st September last instead of on the 1st January next year, as provided for in the Bill.
This is a question, like the amount of compensation payable, that was under dis-
cussion between the Executive of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain and the representatives of the Mining Association of Great Britain, and they had come to an agreement on the 28th May last. For some reason or another the other employers of the country could not be got to fall into line with the employers in the mining industry, and instead of this Amending Bill coming in in June or July last, as it ought to have done, it has been delayed until now. Consequently, those in receipt of compensation have gone on suffering and meeting the increased cost of living with only a 25 per cent. advance on the compensation payable before the War. In these circumstances we think it would only be fair to have the compensation made payable from the 1st September. I understood that at a recent meeting between the representatives of the Home Office, the miners, and the Mining Association this matter was again discussed, and they tried to settle it on a somewhat similar basis to this. I do not know what consideration the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State may have given to the matter since that discussion took place, but I hope they can see their way to give us this Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: I quite appreciate the hardships which have been suffered in consequence of the delay—the unavoidable delay, I can assure my right hon. and hon. Friends opposite—in bringing in this Bill. At the same time, I would ask the House to recollect what the difficulties were with which we were faced. After all, since 1897 the intention has always been that as far as possible the cost of workmen's compensation should fall upon industry as a whole, and that intention has been carried out largely by means of insurance. You have, therefore, a state of things in which the individual employer insures, as part of a regular charge upon his industry, with certain insurance companies who accept the liability. The liability at the time of the insurance is known; they know exactly how much he insures, and he pays a premium in consequence. If you make this retrospective, instead of making it as from the date put into the Act itself, a date which can be foreseen and is foreseen and can be provided for and readjustments of premium made, what is the result? You have individual employers who are only insured under a certain rate of insurance for
liabilities of a certain limited character, and you put upon them a liability to pay more than they have insured against. That is a great hardship, and instead of the system which has been adopted and carried out ever since the beginning of workmen's compensation, making the industry pay the compensation by means of the insurance companies, you put upon the individual employer a personal liability which he has never had an opportunity of meeting by insurance or in any other way.
But there is another difficulty in addition. There have been since that date a very considerable number of cases which have been settled for a lump sum consideration upon the basis of the payments then made under the War Addition Act, 1917. If you are going to be fair, you would have to re-open every one of those cases, start the whole negotiations over again, and settle them on the basis of the new terms that are to come into existence. The difficulties of that, financially and administratively, would he very great indeed. I am afraid the Amendments have been on rather an ascending scale, and I hope the House will mat take this as a parrot cry if I say that this is a very important Amendment and a very far-reaching one. It imposes liabilities that people have never had an opportunity of meeting, and which, with all fairness, they ought to have had an opportunity of arranging by insurance. It would create difficulties which would make it extremely hard to carry out this Bill. It would require all kinds of new arrangements. Something would have to be done to meet the employers. It would not be fair for this House to put a retrospective liability upon individuals, unless the House were prepared also to come to their assistance, in some measure, at any rate, out of public funds. That we cannot do under this Bill, and therefore it comes to this. The House is asked to do something which is very unfair to individuals, unless some assistance is given, which cannot be done under this Bill, and, therefore, if you are to be fair to them, you must postpone your Bill. Having regard to all the difficulties, and the desire we all have to get a measure of relief for the many hundreds of people who are unable to live properly on the compensation, we have got to do what we can to meet their necessities, and I ask my right hon. Friend not to press this Amendment, but if it is pressed, I shall ask the House to vote against it.

Mr. HARTSHORN: I am very surprised to hear the statement to which we have just listened from the right hon. Gentleman. When the Bill came before the Committee an evening or two ago Progress was reported in order that we might clear up some misunderstanding that had arisen, and we have held a meeting at the Home Office since then with representatives of the employers and representatives of the trade unions. I understood we had come to an arrangement—a very fair and definite arrangement so far as employers and eve were concerned, unquestionably—that this Bill should date back to the 1st September, that the twenty-one limit should go out, and we agreed to accept the flat-rate instead of the scale that had been suggested and previously agreed to.

Major BAIRD: As to what occurred, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, there is no conflict. It is perfectly true that the hon. Gentleman and his friends representing the workmen, and representatives of the mine-owners did agree undoubtedly, but they did not represent the whole body of the industries concerned, and, for the reasons which my right hon. Friend has given to-night. I said it was quite impossible for me to pledge the Government to that course of action, but that I would represent to my right hon. Friend how strongly the hon. Gentleman and his Friends felt on the subject. But I made it perfectly clear that I could not give a pledge on the subject so far as the Government was concerned, and I feared it would be impossible to meet the views put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. HARTSHORN: I am prepared to admit at once that the hon. Gentleman did not definitely pledge the Government, and that he stated that before he could he must make representations to the Home Secretary.

Major BAIRD: And to the other sections concerned.

Mr. HARTSHORN: And to the other employers. I think that is correct, but we understood that that was all to be done before the Bill came up for Report, because we discussed how it could be done, and that as it had been passed in Committee, it could only be brought up on Report. We have done this, as we understood, in accordance with the arrangement made. I know that Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis and Mr. Evan Williams, repre-
senting the employers, said, "We will go down and see the representatives of the employers in the House. We cannot say they will support this, but we will say that they will not oppose it." And they came down to get this thing fixed up. I am very surprised, after the negotiations that took place, that there is any quibbling about this at all.

Major BAIRD: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me. There is no question of quibbling whatever. What we said we would do we did. We have consulted the other people, and have been unable to obtain their consent.

Mr. HARTSHORN: What was the use of our going to the office at all? We got Mr. Smillie and you got the employers, and we had a joint conference for the purpose of coming to an arrangement. We had these points in dispute, and why were we discussing these points with these people if we could not come to terms? I can only state that Mr. Smillie reported to the Miners' National Executive that we agreed to accept the 75 per cent. flat rate, that you had agreed to delete the twenty-one years of age provision, and that you had agreed, or rather that the employers and we had come to an agreement, and we understood that, subject to the approval of this House, these arrangements were going into this Bill. After all, Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis and Mr. Evan Williams, as representing their association, have been in communication with employers in other industries. As a matter of fact, it was they, in the first instance, who supplied you with the views of other employers. The employers and ourselves agreed as a mining industry as far back as 28th May. The sub-committee that was appointed, so far as the owner side was concerned, said, "We will put it before our association, and you should have a definite reply by 20th June." On the 20th June they agreed, but they said, "Before we go to the Home Secretary, we want to consult the other employers," and in July they had consulted the other employers, and supplied you with the-information as to the views entertained by the other employers. When we were discussing that the other day, we were certainly under the impression that we were fixing up an arrangement which was subject only to the decision of the House. I do not know whether it is in order to report Progress here, but I should certainly move if it
is in order. In any case, I would rather this Bill were deferred again than that we should have this misunderstanding.

Mr. T. WILSON: I think my hon. Friend has given a clear résumé of what took place at the first meeting yesterday in connection with this Bill. We certainly understood at the later meeting that the whole of the employers had agreed—we heard so.

Mr. SHORTT: That may be.

Mr. WILSON: Had agreed that the Bill should be retrospective as from the 1st September. I want to put another point to the right hon. Gentleman. He made it appear that the employers did not insure at the higher rate when compensation was to be paid. I put it to him during the last five years the employers have been paying a great deal higher rate of premium than they paid for the individual men before the War. I mean that the employers insured their workmen on the wage basis and not on an individual basis. The wages now, and for practically three years at least, have been 90 per cent. and in some instances probably 110 per cent. and 120 per cent. higher than before the War. This means that the insurance companies have received a very largely increased premium for the insured individuals. Having, therefore, received that very much higher premium for the men employed, the companies are in a position now to pay compensation back as from 1st September last. To prove what I am saying, I am given to understand that the Mine-owners' Association came to an agreement some time ago with the insurance companies to reduce the amount of premium paid by one-third. We must not forget the men and boys employed in the mines meet with an extraordinarily large number of accidents. That being so, if in an industry where a large number of accidents occur, the insurance companies can afford to accept one-third less premium for insured persons than before the War, that in the case of other industries in the country, where they have been paying the full premium—I am told they are now—the insurance companies must be in a position to pay increased compensation as from 1st September. I do not think that the administrative difficulties are quite so bad as from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman they would appear to be. The Bill would
certainly be received with much more appreciation if the Home Secretary dated it back to 1st September, and give some of these men—and women as well—increased compensation from that date. If the right hon. Gentleman is not himself prepared to make the change, I would suggest that he should leave it to the free judgment and vote of the House as to whether or not this Amendment should be accepted.

Mr. SHORTT: The fact that the Mine-owners' Association agreed with the, Miners' Federation is not in the least binding upon the shipbuilders or engineers or any other of the employers.

Mr. WILSON: I did not say so.

Mr. SHORTT: No; but it has been so argued. The mere fact that the workmen and owners come together in one industry cannot possibly justify the Government in imposing a liability upon other industries. The amount paid, and the amount received in wages, is wholly irrelevant. It does not matter what are the premiums paid; the point is what, under the policy, are the insurance companies liable for? The companies are only liable for the-specified amount of the policy. If this, as suggested, he added, the insurance companies can say, "It is all very well to make that arrangement retrospective, but we will not pay it." We have gone into the matter most carefully, and there are administrative difficulties. Other employers, the engineers and so on, will not agree to this. This is a temporary Bill which has been subject to great negotiation.

Mr. HARTSHORN: We have been waiting eight months for it!

Mr. SHORTT: After all, if this Bill had been brought in to deal with the coal industry alone we should have had it in then summer—I quite agree. But other industries are concerned, and have to be consulted. Negotiations have to be entered into, and we cannot he held responsible for not being able to bring other industries into line with the coal industry so quickly as we should like.

Mr. HARTSHORN: You were not trying.

Mr. SHORTT: The hon. Member does not know how much trouble we have taken. For him to make that remark, having regard to what we have done, is-not quite called for. He does not know a
[...]enth of the difficulties we have had to overcome with regard to this Bill. The Bill is based on negotiation. Where you have a Bill based on negotiation you are bound in honour not to do things which tell against the arrangement entered into. Where a Bill is based on negotiation you must keep faith with those with whom you have negotiated.

Mr. SPENCER: The inability of the Home Secretary to accept the Amendment to the Bill has come as a very rude shock to us. We were labouring under the impression till to-day, in view of the representatives of the mining community meeting at the Home Office, that whilst the Government were not in a position to accept the provision antedating this Clause to July, they were in a position, on the joint understanding of the owners' and men's representatives, to accept 1st September of this year. Now we find the right hon. Gentleman giving, no doubt, proper reasons why the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment It seems a pity that the Government, being unable to get one section of the employers to agree, that another section of interested parties are to be deprived of the advantage of an arrangement. If the right hon. Gentleman and the employers in other industries could have seen their way to accept this very simple and moderate request I am quite certain it would have gone a very long way to reconciling us to the provisions of this Bill. It does not at all meet the situation, which is a very alarming one, as has already been stated. The right hon. Gentleman is not associated with the workmen and the sufferings of those who come under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. He does not know the enormous distress that has been caused throughout the community, and that section of the working classes that are so subject to accidents as are the mining community.
If it had been possible to have accepted this Amendment it would have reconciled us to this measure. Now it is bound to create a great deal of dissatisfaction, and that dissatisfaction has been outlined in many of our mining meetings at which we have been told that we have been asleep. We have done our best in this matter, and, though it is imperfect, I say that if we could have gained our point about the elimination of the provisions in regard to those under twenty-one, and this Amend-
ment, we should have been somewhat reconciled, and I believe it would have given a degree of satisfaction to these men who have been suffering for a long time. This Bill will not be satisfactory so far as the provision itself is concerned; but, what is worse, it will be unsatisfactory so far as negotiations are concerned. We are totally dissatisfied in respect of the negotiations, because we were led to understand that we were being led to a point along with the employers at which we were going to accept this Amendment. Therefore, we are dissatisfied both with the Bill and with the negotiations, and we feel very strongly upon this point—in fact, we should go almost as far as wrecking the Bill but for the sake of the poor people who are suffering. We fully recognise what the Home Secretary has said, that the improvement which will be made will be of inestimable value to those who are suffering, and we do not want to deprive them of that advantage. I hope even now that it will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give this matter reconsideration and make a change in the direction we have indicated, for that would give a degree of satisfaction of which the right hon. Gentleman is not aware. I hope he will listen to those who have made this plea and, if possible, reconsider this point.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. NEIL NIACLEAN: I join in the appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment. So far as I can gather frosts the defence which has been made by the Home Secretary, while I admit his appreciation of the difficulties and the conditions of the people who have to suffer, the main reasons why he cannot accept the Amendment are the difficulties in regard to insurance paid by employers. So far as the Government of this country is concerned, when they are talking about the conditions and circumstances of those who have been injured they should not be placed in the background in order to serve the interests of the insurance companies. Everybody knows of the large profits made by insurance companies through the lapse of policies and other matters. The individuals who have suffered the accidents are now suffering badly, and they are only receiving a 25 per cent. increase upon their pre-war allowances. I think the Government might have been a little more active in trying to induce employers in other industries to come into line with the
employers in the mining industry, and they should have tried to get the same agreement for those engaged in other industries. The mine-owners and workers agreed to the present terms in May of this year. I think the Government was to blame and is to blame for not setting up conferences of workers in other industries in order to arrive at the same agreement as that which has been reached by the miners and mine-owners. I do not think we can represent those who sent us here in a proper manner unless we divide the House on this matter. For these reasons I trust the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment, and make this particular allowance retrospective from the 1st of September.

Mr. WIGNALL: This Bill has been described as an allround and comprehensive measure, and those reading the Report may be led to think that it is simply a measure to meet the requirements of the miners. I endorse all that has been said by the previous speakers, and I am connected with all outside body of workers who have long been looking forward to this overdue measure to assist weak men who have been bearing the heaviest of burdens. I can assure the House that for many months all the employers that I have come in contact with have been looking forward to a measure that would give a larger amount of compensation than is being paid, because I think everybody is agreed that the time has gone by when this measure should have been introduced. The Home Secretary stated that he has had great difficulty in getting the various interests to agree to this measure, and I think I am right in saying that there is a very large section who have not agreed and who have not given their consent to this measure being introduced at all. Some of the larger associations may have done so, but there is a very large body of employers who would never give one single penny of an advance, it they were left to themselves, and consequently there is not that measure of agreement that one may be left to suppose exists.
As regards this retrospective payment, I know that the insurance companies will object to it, and certainly the employers will object, because they will say they have not made provision for it. Nevertheless, I think they have been putting a bit aside for it, and they will be grateful if they
are not called upon to pay it. Retrospective payments are objectionable, but how many times have we, in Courts of arbitration on wages questions, argued against a hostile body of employers for retrospective payment and they have protested and argued and declared emphatically that if the Court of arbitration made the payment retrospective it would ruin the industry, and some have said, "Even if you do award it we will never pay it." The Court has awarded it, and with very few exceptions they have paid it. If the Home Secretary and the Government can see their way clear to give this measure of fair play to the persons who can least afford to suffer to-day, it will be greatly appreciated. We in the Labour movement come face to face with these cases, end we see the poverty, suffering and hunger very often acute to the greatest possible measure in the home. We should not want compensation if we could prevent accidents happening, but, while they happen it is unfair to let the weakest men suffer because they have not the power of resistance. We are not asking for a gift; we are only asking that these people should be given that to which they would have been rightly entitled if this Bill had been brought in when it should have been brought in six months ago. We are now only asking you to split the difference, but there is no spirit of compromise in the Government. If we had claimed all that is due, we should have asked for the six months, but we have split the difference, and you will not accept our compromise, although the benefit would go to those in greatest need of it. After all, there is not a great multitude of cases to meet. I daresay that it would amount to thousands, but they are all cases that can be easily dealt with, because the records are kept. Of course, you will have grumbling. It is natural to insurance companies, but they always pay with a grunt. Give them an opportunity in this case to give some of that which is due to men who have been made to suffer not only pain, but hunger and poverty, which adds to their torment. I hope that the Government will see their way to meet us in this matter.
Question put, "That the words 'commencement of this Act' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 52.

Division No. 153.]
AYES.
[9.8 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Forestier-Walker, L.
Nail, Major Joseph


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Forrest, W.
Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)


Armitage, Robert
Faxcroft, Captain C.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Oman, C. W. C.


Astaury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Gangs, E. S.
Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)


Atkey, A. R.
Gardiner, J. (Perth)
Parry, Lt.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Baird, John Lawrence
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Bas'gst'ke)
Pearce, Sir William


Baldwin, Stanley
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Barlow, Sir Montagu (Salford, S.)
Glyn, Major R
Perkins, Walter Frank


Barnett, Major Richard
Grayson, Lieut.-Col, H. M.
Pickering. Col. Emil W.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Gretton, Colonel John
Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton


Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Griggs, Sir Peter
Pratt, John William


Bennett, T. J.
Guest, Capt. Hon, F. E. (Dorset, E.)
Pulley, Charles Tharnton


Bigland, Alfred
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leis., Loughboro')
Purchase, H. G.


Bird, Alfred
Hacking, Colonel D. H.
Raeburn, Sir William


Blades, Sir George R.
Hailwood, A.
Ramsden, G. T.


Blair, Major Reginald
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)
Randles, Sir John Scurrah


Berwick, Major G. O.
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Rankin, Capt. James S.


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)
Raw, Lt.-Colonel Dr. N.


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)
Rees, Sir J. D.


Breese, Major C. E.
Hennessy, Major G.
Renwick, G.


Bridgeman, William Clive
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)


Britton, G. B.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bruton, Sir J.
Hilder, Lt.-Colonel F.
Robinson, T. Stretford, Lancs.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Rogers, Sir Hallowell


Campbell, J. G. D.
Hinds, John
Rowlands, James


Campion, Colonel W. R.
Hood, Joseph
Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)


Carr, W. T.
Hope. James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)


Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)
Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Cecil, Rt. Hen. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hudson, R. M.
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Chadwick, R. Burton
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hurd, P. A.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Hurst, Major G. B.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, S.)


Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.
Inskip, T. W. H.
Smithers, Sir Allred W.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jameson, Major J. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Ashton)


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Jodrell, N. P.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)


Coots, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Johnson, L. S.
Stevens, Marshall


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Stewart, Gershom


Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sugden, Lieut. W. H.


Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Kerr-Smiley, Major P.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl.)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Tryon, Major George Clement


Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)
Lonsdale, James R.
Ward, Dudley (Southampton)


Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)
Wardle, George J.


Denniss, E. R. Bartley (Oldham)
M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Waring, Major Walter


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Dixon, Captain H.
M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)
Whitla. Sir William


Dockrell, Sir M.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Doyle, N. Grattan
Maddocks, Henry
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)
Matthews, David
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Elliott, Lt.-Col, Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Middlebrook, Sir William
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Elveden, Viscount
Moles, Thomas
Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Cot. J. T. C.
Younger, Sir George


Falcon, Captain M.
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)



Fell, Sir Arthur
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.


Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Talbot and Mr. J, Parker


Foreman, H.






NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)
Simm, M. T


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hanna, G. B.
Sitch, C. H.


Bell, James (Ormskirk)
Hartshorn, V.
Spencer, George A.


Benn, Captain W. (Leith)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Widnes)
Stanton, Charles Butt


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Swan, J E. C.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hirst, G. H.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)


Bromfield, W.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Tillett, Benjamin


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Jephcott, A. R.
Wallace, J.


Cairns, John
Kelly, Edward J. (Donegal, E.)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke, Trent)


Cape, Tam
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Wignall, James


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Kidd, James
Wilkie, Alexander


Casey, T. W.
Lawson, John
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc,)
Lann, William
Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Lynn, R. J.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wood, Maj. Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)


Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)
Rattan, Peter Wilson



Entwistle, Major C. F.
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.


Galbraith, Samuel
Robertson, J.
Tyson Wilson and Mr. T. Griffiths.


Ninth Resolution read a second time.

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY— [10TH DECEMBER].

Resolutions reported;

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1919–20.

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,077,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, Royal Marines, Women's Royal Naval Service, and Mercantile Officers and Men, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £,25,816,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
2. That a sum, not exceeding £2,385,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £7,623,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
3. That a sum, not exceeding £150,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Medical Services, including the cost of Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £479,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
4. That a stun, not exceeding £118,004, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civilians employed on Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £378,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
5. That a sum, not exceeding £99,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Educational Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £318,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
6. That a sum, not exceeding £110,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Scientific Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £353,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
7. That a sum, not exceeding £109,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Fleet Reserve, and the Royal Naval Volunteers, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920,
1744
in addition to a sum of £350,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
8. That a sum, not exceeding £2,862,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., at Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to the sum of £9,146,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
9. That a sum, not exceeding £2,546,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Materiel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., at Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to the sum of £8,139,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
10. That a sum, not exceeding £9,975,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £31,880,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
11. That a sum, not exceeding £3,763,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Armaments and Aviation, which will coins in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £12,027,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
12. That a sum, not exceeding £1,336,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £4,331,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
13. That a sum, not exceeding £1,455,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, in addition to a sum of £4,601,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
14. That a sum, not exceeding £453,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £1,447,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
15. That a sum, not exceeding £308,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Half Pay and Retired Pay, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £988,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
1745
16. That a sum, not exceeding £3,607,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £11,527,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
17. That a sum, not exceeding £171,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, in addition to a sum of £547,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £120,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Under this Vote His Majesty's ship "Repulse" is shown as being under repair at a cost of £739,000. This sum approximates to half the original cost of the vessel, and I think the House is entitled to some explanation with regard to this very heavy expenditure.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to reinforce what my hon. and gallant Friend has said with regard to His Majesty's ship "Repulse." It is most essential we should have some details of this. I see the greater part of this money, according to the Estimate, is to be spent on armour. Above the item for the "Repulse" appears the name of the "Renown," and an estimate is given there for armour for the same amount as for the "Repulse." It seems very extraordinary that these two ships, laid down in 1915, according to a design by Lord Fisher, of great speed and great gun power, are now to have these large sums spent on them for armour after being purposely built with light armour to carry out the ideas of that great master of strategy. I think it is extraordinary that these sums of £700,000 each should be spent in tinkering up each of these vessels, and I hope their Lordships will think twice before they carry on this rather extraordinary policy. In the Debate last night I was unable to obtain information, although I had given notice that I intended to ask for it—but, by a mistake, it was not forthcoming—with regard to the case of the cruiser "Antrim," an obsolescent armoured cruiser built in-1902 and quite useless for
modern fleet work. She is having a sum of over £161,000 spent on her for the purpose of making her into a signal vessel. I think a more modern ship should have been utilised for the work, and the money spent on her, so that she could be used in war-time, which the "Antrim" will never be. Then there is the case of the ancient protected cruiser "High-flyer," which was laid down in 1897, has a speed of only seventeen knots, and is fitted with old-fashioned Scottish boilers. She is having a sum of £95,000 spent on her. Hon. Members seem rather surprised at these details, but they are responsible for the expenditure of this money. The Scottish boilers serve their purpose. They have been the most successful boilers in the world, but under modern conditions with oil-driven engines and turbines, they are like the ancient ark and have passed their sphere of utility for naval purposes. Finally, there is a sum of £850,000 for the purchase of vessels.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): That is on the next Vote.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer the question I have put.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I will do so at once. I did know that the hon. and gallant Member desired to raise the case of the "Highflyer" in yesterdays Debate, and I had a note upon it, but in the endeavour to condense as much as I could a reply which had to cover a Debate lasting between seven and eight hours, I am afraid I condensed that note out of existence altogether. I apologise for having done so. The "Highflyer" was selected as the flagship of the Commander-in-Chief, East Indies, because the modern light cruisers designed and built for the late War were unsuitable for the purposes of a flagship, and the accommodation which the Commander-in-Chief at that station would require. The "Highflyer" had previously been used on that station, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, as the flagship, and had proved quite satisfactory. She was selected after very careful consideration indeed of all the facts of the case. As regards the figures on this Vote and elsewhere, I need not remind my hon. and gallant Friend that when he speaks of £95,000, which is the figure in the Estimates for the "Highflyer," you have to
divide that at least by two and more than two, to get back to the figure we should have paid under the Estimates which were presented in 1913–14. That is owing to the increased cost of labour and material.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Had not a class of vessels been built especially to serve as flagships on foreign stations, with a much greater fighting power?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot answer that, but the modern light cruiser is not suitable for the service. Having gone carefully into all the facts, the Board came to the conclusion that she was the vessel most suitable for the service. In order to arrive at a fair comparison between the figures now and those of 1913–14, you have to multiply the cost of alterations, repairs, and refits by more than two. As to the "Antrim," I explained yesterday that she was going to be fitted as a signal ship. She is being fitted as a signal and wireless telegraphy experimental seagoing ship. I have now given her precise function in full. She was completed in 1905. She is not expected to fight. She was specially selected for this particular purpose as being the most suitable vessel. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the only alterations contemplated are those necessary to fit her for her new duties, which obviously are considered very important. As to the "Repulse," she was laid down in 1915 and completed in 1916. The expenditure upon her is for the purpose of increasing her protection against gunfire and against torpedo attack. She was originally specially designed—no one knows this better than the hon. and gallant Member—for high speed. The experience of the War has shown the Naval Staff that in her case it is desirable to increase her protection against gunfire and torpedo attack, and for that purpose this sum of money is required. As to the "Renown," she was laid down in 1915 and completed in 1916. She is the sister ship to the "Repulse." The alterations carried out in the case of the "Repulse" have not been done in the case of the "Renown," but provision has been made in the Estimates for the taking in hand and progressing with her protective work. I do not think any other ship was mentioned.
Question put, and agreed to.
Tenth Resolution read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: This Vote includes £835,000 for the purchase of vessels. In view of the great strength of the Navy when Peace came, it seems extraordinary that this sum should be expended on this purpose. Does it include the purchase of the minelayer "Princess Margaret," the ex-Canadian Pacific Railway liner? If so, it throws an extraordinary light on the policy pursued during the last eighteen months. She is an enormous ship. No one seeing her on the sea could mistake her. For that reason alone she is unsuitable as a minelayer. She has been on hire agreement during the whole of the War at very high cost; indeed I am told that she has been paid for twice over. Now this rather unsuitable ship has been purchased for something like £400,000. It shows an extraordinary extravagance, to put it mildly, to purchase this ship for this service, in view of her many defects and the high cost she is hound to incur. We are entitled to some explanation of this item of £835,000 for purchases.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The First Lord yesterday stated that this was for Fleet auxiliaries, and that is broadly true. The vessels which are here covered are two auxiliaries. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me if the name of a particular ship was included. I cannot answer that offhand. Perhaps he will put a question on the Paper. There are two auxiliaries, both of which have been employed on their respective services during the War. Special service vessels are included in this amount, and a ship specially fitted for experimental work. The remainder represents some prize ships, the value of which is shown, in order to credit the Prize Fund with their value.
Question put, and agreed to.
Eleventh Resolution read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I should like to know what is being done with the two airships R 34 and R 33, whose property they are, and to what use they are now being put.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I presume they have been transferred to the-Air Ministry.
As to the remainder of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question, I should recommend him to address an inquiry in that quarter.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we not finding the money for this, and are we not entitled to raise the point?

Dr. MACNAMARA: There is some money in Vote 9 for construction purposes, there is some money in Vote 10 for land and sheds, and there is some money in Vote 12 for the staff at the Office, but all that referred to the earlier part of the year and was supplied for the Service. They have now been transferred. If I am asked, to what use the transferred property is now being put, I cannot answer the question.
Question put, and agreed to.
Twelfth Resolution read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Commander Viscount CURZON: There is an item of £8,550 in. respect of Osborne College, and I should like some information as to what it means. There is another large item for Invergordon. I should like an assurance that the dockyard at Invergordon is nearly being wound up at the earliest possible moment. A good deal of money is still being spent on the new pier at Dalmore. I should like to know that it is really necessary for peace-time purposes as well as for wartime.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The expenditure at Osborne is immediately necessary in order to secure the comfort of the cadets and to make it satisfactory from the health point of view. That does not mean that the future policy at Osborne has been determined. The whole matter is under reconsideration. Whatever we do at Osborne in the future, we were bound immediately, on the best advice we could get, to spend the money. Invergordon is being closed up, We do not propose to retain this yard for peace-time purposes. I cannot say how the new pier stands. I imagine we are endeavouring to dispose of it for commercial purposes, but Invergordon as a naval base will be closed down.
Question put, and agreed to.
Thirteenth Resolution agreed to.
Fourteenth Resolution read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth, agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: With regard to, the remuneration of the Board of Admiralty, I am not at all satisfied with their attitude on the question of the payment of the junior officers in the Service, lieutenants in particular. I think they are not paying sufficient attention to that having regard to the great increase which has been made in the corresponding ranks in the Army.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): This is a matter which should have been raised on Vote 1. On the Report stage of a Vote we are confined strictly to the matter contained in each Vote. There is no general discussion. On this Vote anything to do with tine staffing of the Admiralty is in order, but not the general pay of the Service.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I wish to draw the attention of the Admiralty most seriously to the very grave responsibility that lies upon them in connection with, seeing that our Air Service associated with the Navy is maintained efficiently, which it is not at present.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Those who have been on the Admiralty staff will welcome the small item in the, brochure to the effect that it is intended apparently to keep on the Training and Staff Duties Division of the Admiralty. This Department, the idea of which is borrowed from the War Office, will be, if it is properly run and organised and given a chance, of incalculable benefit to the efficiency of the whole Service. It will have the whole of the training which will be co-ordinated with the general staff work and it will be a part of the Staff, and it ought to be divorced entirely from the domain of the Second Sea Lord's activities with personnel apart from training. I beg my right hon. Friend to let me have an assurance that the matter is being carefully considered at the Admiralty. If the Staff is to be efficient in the future the appointments of Staff officers to particular Staff posts must be in the hands of the Training and Staff Duties Division, and if the appointment of Staff officers and officers training in staff duties is held and exercised by the Second Sea Lord, that division, from which we progressives in the Navy hope so much, the
Training and Staff Duties Division, will be much hampered, and its usefulness will not be nearly so great as if it were run on Army lines. I do not want to press my right hon. Friend, but if he could give me an assurance that the training staff is a live power and that it has full power over the appointment of Staff officers, the Navy would be relieved.

Viscount CURZON: I should like to reinforce what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in regard to the Naval Staff. In the Plan Division, which is one of the most important branches of the Naval Staff, there is at present one director, two assistant directors, and one staff clerk. Three officers and a clerk to constitute the brains of the Plan Division of the Admiralty, one of the most important divisions. I do earnestly press the right hon. Gentleman for a better statement than we have had up to now as to the policy of the Admiralty towards the Naval Staff. I should like to be certain that the thinking Department of the Admiralty is not being cut down too much under the influence of the very natural and laudable desire for economy. By all means economise, providing you economise in the right way, but you must have a thinking Department available which will afford you the opportunity, should it ever unfortunately become necessary again, to rapidly expand your naval organisation, to keep closely in touch with all the details relating to modern war. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give an assurance on the point that the Staff Division of the Admiralty is not being unduly cut down in response to pressure on the part of the economists.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Last night the First Lord, in introducing the Estimates, referred to the need for co-ordination between the various Services. I think we are entitled to a little more enlightenment as to what policy he intends to adopt before we pass this Estimate for the Naval Staff. I agree with both the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have just spoken that the planning section and the thinking department of the Admiralty must not be in any way restricted and cut down. We saw a very good example of staff work last night. After thirteen months of peace the First Lord comes to the House and says that he is unable to
state a policy. During that time the allied staffs have been discussing in Paris the future of naval policy, and it seems to me a remarkable thing that after thirteen months deliberation they have not arrived at any decision. The point upon which I should like to be enlightened relates to the co-ordination of the three Services, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. Is it intended to revive the Committee of Imperial Defence, without any constitutional powers, and with all the farce that existed before the War? It will be remembered what used to happen at the Committee of Imperial Defence. The heads of Departments attended the meetings of the Committee, and they were probably agreed on policy, but they went back to their respective Departments of the Admiralty and the War Office, and in their different capacities as members of the Admiralty Board or the War Office, they would reverse decisions which had been arrived at at the Committee of Imperial Defence. If a central body, whether it is the Committee of Imperial Defence or a Ministry of Defence is set up, it must have executive power, and must be under a Minister responsible for defence. We have seen failures resulting from this policy in numerous operations throughout the War. If we had had a staff capable of coordinating the three Services, a great many of the disasters and calamities which occurred during the War might have turned out to be most brilliant achievements, such as the Dardanelles operations, and operations in the North Sea.

Mr. ACLAND: I wish to refer to the subject I raised last night and on which I received an announcement to-day from the Leader of the House, and that is the financial organisation of the Admiralty. It appeared from the answer the First Lord gave to me yesterday and the answer I got from the Leader of the House to-day that the matter has only just been taken up, although the Report of the Public Accounts Committee was rendered in July. I am sure that neither the Admiralty nor other public Departments wish to ignore the strong recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. I do not know of whom the Public Accounts Committee may consist next Session, but the setting up of a new Public Accounts Committee next Session is not many months off, and it would be a pity
if it had to be reported to the Public Accounts Committee then that no progress had been made in investigating this very difficult and extremely important matter. If the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty would consult the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, he would realise that the matter is important. I can only ask for the assurance now that so far as my right hon. Friend at the Admiralty is concerned, he will do all he can after these five months' delay to see that the matter is very seriously gone into.

Major GLYN: As regards the Department of the Director of Transport there is a foot note which says that the whole staff of this Department is loaned to the Ministry of Shipping. If that is the case, I understand that officers serving in the Ministry of Shipping are in receipt of hgher pay than they previously received in serving the Admiralty, and I should be glad to know whether when these officers return to the Admiralty they will be in receipt of their present rate of pay, or will come down to their previous rates of pay. All Army officers serving in the Dardanelles were very much aware that there is great need for a complete revision of the handbook on combined operations. They knew of the reluctance of fighting officers of the Navy to take on work dealing with the Mercantile Marine. Their training is absolutely different from anything which has to do with the Mercantile Marine. Now at the Ministry of Shipping there are officers who have been loaned from the Admiralty Transport branch who have great experience of war and when the time comes to transfer them, and these officers and the personnel of the staff go back to the Admiralty, if their experience of the War and the lessons taught by the War which cost, us so much life and wealth, are not taken into account, we shall have forfeited lessons which test us very dearly, especially in Gallipoli. Perhaps we might have a little information as to what is to be the future of the Transport Branch. I trust after what has been said as regards the importance of a joint General Staff that before any final decision is taken in regard to the future of the Transport Service, it may be considered whether or not some fresh arrangement in regard to transport might be considered, so as to include officers of experience in the Mercantile Marine, who
have rendered very great service to the Army and the Navy in the transport of troops during the War.

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and gallant Friend (Sir J. Davidson) has raised a very important question of co-operation between the heads of the three fighting Staffs. The hon. and gallant Member for Clackmannan (Major Glyn) especially emphasised the transport aspect of such cooperation. I confess frankly that I cannot dogmatise on these matters with anything in the nature of a weighty opinion. I have been at the Admiralty twelve years, but I am conscious that I am not a sailor. I am a civilian, and I hesitate to dogmatise about these matters or to speak at all confidently about them. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) has referred to the thinking Department being cut down. He need have no apprehension upon that point. We have as the Chief of the Staff Admiral of the Fleet Earl Beattie, fresh from the sea, and he has around him as his colleagues men who have all come like him straight from the sea, with very large naval experience, so that my hon. and gallant Friend can have a further reassurance that the thinking Department is not being cut down. With regard to all these matters, all comments which hon. Members of the House are good enough to give are very carefully tabulated after all these Debates, and they are referred to the competent authorities responsible, who will examine them and consider them, and, where necessary, report the matter for consideration to then Board of Admiralty; and I will take care, though I do not feel that I can deal with these matters with such confidence as appears to be possible to others, that they shall all be represented.

Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON: There is the question of the full efficiency which depends on a proper effective co-ordination between the three forces responsible for defence. That is the whole question and a most important question.

Dr. MACNAMARA: That was heartily represented yesterday, and again to-night with no less stress, and it shall be put before those who are responsible for this great Service.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Are we to assume that nothing has been done so far?

10.0 P.M.

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and gallant Friend heard what the First Lord of the Admiralty said yesterday in reply. I cannot go beyond that. As regards the Transport Department, the work is steadily coming back to us. I am not aware that, during the time that the offices have been seconded, if that is the term, to the Shipping Controller, they have been more favourably treated from the point of view of emoluments. I cannot give any undertaking as to what would be the position when they return to us, but it will have to be carefully considered. My right hon. Friend referred to the second report of the Public Accounts Committee. It was a report, as regards the paragraph which he had in mind, which deals with the matter of controlling finance, and after describing the War Office organisation it went on to says:
Your Committee do not hesitate to say that their actual experience of the accounts of the Departments amply confirms the natural expectations that the War Office system would show the better results in practice.
I make no comment on that. It goes on:
The strength and efficiency of that system lie essentially in the fact that one and the same man handles the actual expenditure in the account and gives financial advice. His knowledge of actual expenditure gives his advice a great part of its value, and the fact that he and his subordinates in touch with the military branches share the discussions on policy as affecting finance and know the real intention enables them to see that the intention in fact is carried out.
That is the matter to which our attention is called by the Public Accounts Committee. It goes on:
At the Admiralty on the other hand there is no such vital touch under the hands of one person and his staff between finance and administration. The Accountant-General's staff make an estimate of any financial proposal at its inception but then lose touch with it. The Assistant Secretary for Financial Duties hears of it at a later stage only if and when it is referred to him by the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary.
Further, they state,
with regard to the general system of financial control, your Committee cannot but view with grave apprehension the diminutions of the powers of the Accounting Officer of the Navy, and they are of opinion that there should be an independent inquiry into the whole system of internal financial control at the Admiralty.
As far as I am concerned we will be only too glad to have the two methods, the War Office method, with civilian touch on these points, as against the Admiralty method, examined to see—after all the proof of the pudding is in the eating—which is the
better system. I do not know what particular form of inquiry the Public Accounts Committee wishes to propose, but so far as I am concerned and the Board of Admiralty are concerned, we will lend every assistance possible to any effort to find out the advantages and disadvantages of the two systems.
Question put, and agreed to.
Fifteenth Resolution agreed to.
Sixteenth Resolution read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Viscount CURZON: I would like, if I may, to press once again on the Admiralty the position of the old Royal Pensioner. As the House will remember, the question of naval pensions was dealt with in the Jerram Report. Under the Jerram Report the pensioners who did not serve during the War, the old pensioners, were left out, and no increase whatever was made in their pensions. The reason given by the Government is that this is part of a large question which cannot be dealt with alone, so far as the Navy is concerned, but must he dealt with by all the Services—Navy, Army, Air Force, Civil Service, and so on. I would like to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the case of some of these old Royal Pensioners, and to give particulars of a case I have here. It is that of a man who was a seaman in the Royal Navy and who lost both arms by an accident on a cruiser in Rio Harbour in 1879. He received a pension on the injury scale of 2s. 0½d. a day from naval funds, supplemented by a Greenwich Hospital special pension of 5½d. a day; making in all £45 12s. a year, or 17s. 6d. a week. This is the case of a man who is totally unable to help himself. When be reaches the age of sixty-five he will get an increase which will bring his pension to £50 7s. a year. It is obvious that a man in a position like this cannot possibly maintain himself on 17s. 6d. a week. If there is anything I can say on behalf of the old pensioners. I hope that it will be borne in mind by the Admiralty and that, if possible, they will make representations to the Treasury upon the point.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I find it a very ungracious duty not to be able to say at once that I will do what the hon. and gallant Member suggests. I can say that I sympathise, but that will not help much—not
at all, as a matter of fact. My hon. and gallant Friend knows that recommendation No. 51 of the Jerram Committee was that the revised scale of pensions should apply to all pensioners now on rolls, in consideration of the increased cost of living and the higher standard of comfort normally aimed at. He asks, why do we not carry that recommendation out? It would cover all the old pensioners over fifty-five. The Government decision was that the revised scale would apply, as from 1st April, 1919, to all future pensioners, all pensioners now serving, and all who have served during the War, including those serving in a civilian capacity under the Government who, although under 55 years of age and therefore liable to service during hostilities, were retained in their civilian employment, and that the revised scale will not apply to other pensioners—that is to say, to the old pensioners over 55 on whose behalf my hon. and gallant Friend has appealed. That is the Government decision. I can only add this fact, that we have on our rolls approximately 37,000 life pensioners, and 25,000 of them come under the Government decision. That is, they get the new basic rate increase. That was the effect of the Jerram decision. Those who are not eligible are approximately 1,200. I am sorry I cannot carry the matter beyond the decision given; I have no authority to do so. My hon. and gallant Friend was quite right in saying that the main reason was the fact that we could not legislate for the Naval Service alone in a matter of this sort. That is the difficulty. You would have to be ready to revise the whole roll of pensioners in all directions.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I know the right hon. Gentleman is not personally responsible for the decision, but his statement is very disappointing, and he knows it is disappointing. It simply points the moral of the great evil of wasting money on obsolete ships and spending money on the armouring of ships that were never meant to be armoured, and on other extravagance to which attention has been drawn in the Committee.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: I think it is a very great mistake to hold a very strong opinion and not to express it. There is no one in this House who is more convinced than I am of the necessity for economy and for making our expenditure balance our revenue at the earliest possible moment. At the same time, I think it is
grossly unfair that these pre-war pensioners should not get an increase commensurate with the existing increase in the scale of pensions. It is extremely hard, because you have got to deal here with a class of person over 55 who are very likely incapable of doing any work. The same applies to the Army and the Police and The Civil Service. I have asked what it all amounts to, but I cannot get a reply. I think it is a matter that the House must be told something about, because on the face of it it is grossly unfair.
Question put, and agreed to.
Seventeenth Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY [CAPITAL ACQUISITION].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such further sums, not exceeding in the whole two million and fifty thousand pounds, as are required for the acquisition of share or loan capital of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company; to authorise the Treasury to borrow money by the creation of securities for the issue of such sums or the repayment thereof, the principal of and interest on any such securities to be charged on the Consolidated Fund; and to authorise this payment into the Exchequer and the application of dividends or interest on the capital acquired.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): In passing the Committee stage at an early hour, I gave an undertaking that on the Report stage I would give a brief explanation of this Resolution. The Bill to be brought in on the Resolution is an Amendment of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (Acquisition of Capital) Act of 1914, and hon. Members who are familiar with that Act will remember the circumstances in which it was passed. It was at a time when the Persian oilfield was being developed, and simultaneously with that the use of oil was rapidly passing from the experimental stage. The Admiralty were very anxious that, if possible, one of the potentially great oilfields of the world should be not only worked by British capital, but be actually controlled by the Government, holding sufficient capital in that business to give it the deciding voice in the policy. Under those circumstances a sum of £2,200,000
was taken from the Old Sinking Fund. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) led the Opposition on that occasion and I had the honour of following him into the Lobby, but circumstances have changed since then. We know two things which we did not know for certain then. We know this is a great oilfield and we know that oil fuel has come to stay. The Anglo-Persian Company has been successful beyond, I should imagine, the hopes of its most ardent admirers in the old days. So much has the business developed that they have had to raise a considerable amount of fresh capital, and the question, of course, then arose was the Government to apply for enough of that new issue of capital to still maintain its controlling interest in the Company, or was it to give up the position it had held and run the risk of the shares being otherwise taken up and acquired by various people and by various interests, and that thus we should lose the position we had acquired and held? Apart from that, although I should never be one to advocate the investment of public money in a company for the sake of gain and only on the ground of policy, yet I would remind the House that there is every prospect of this Anglo-Persian investment being an extremely remunerative one. Although during the first few years of the company's existence it paid nothing on the ordinary shares, last year and this year it paid dividends of 10 per cent. free of tax, and the prospects of the company in future are, I think, very bright. I do not know that there is anything more I need say at this stage, although I shall be very pleased to answer any questions, if capable of doing so. I would remind the House that this is only the Report stage of the Finance Resolution. On the Second Reading of the Bill it will be open to discuss the question in much wider measure. Hon. Members may ask what is the urgency of getting this Bill through. I am very sorry it has had to be done in a hurry, but we gave notice to the House in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Newcastle East (Major Barnes) on the 3rd of this month of the Government's intention in this matter, and the application for the Government portion of the shares has to be sent in at once. The prospectus came out about ten days ago, I think, and I was particularly anxious not
to make formal application until, at any rate, we saw -that the policy which we proposed received the assent of Parliament.

Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend has quite rightly said that in the year 1914 there was considerable opposition to this measure, and he has also said that at that time he followed me into the Lobby. He says positions have changed. They have I remain on the Back Bench and still hold the opinion I then held. My hon. Friend has been promoted to the Front Bench, which has apparently changed his opinions. I would like the hon. Gentleman to answer certain questions. He says that this Resolution if passed will be followed by a Bill, and that it would be possible on the Second Reading to discuss the policy embodied in that Bill. Shall we have an opportunity of discussing that Bill, and, if so, will it be 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning or about 5 or 6 in the evening, because it makes a considerable difference? If the Government are going to suspend the Eleven O'clock Rule and take most of the measures on the Paper, it may be that the discussion promised by my hon. Friend will come on when the majority of the Members are in bed. That is not a very great opportunity to discuss measures of this sort, and, therefore, I hope he will give an undertaking that the Second Reading of the Bill, at any rate, shall be brought on at a time when Members are able to discuss it with all their faculties intact. My hon. Friend says that in 1914 this House decided that it was in the interests of the country to acquire a controlling position in this company. I think the present Secretary of State for War, who was at that time First Lord of the Admiralty, was principally responsible for bringing in the measure, and I believe one of the arguments was that there were to be pipes conveyed along a road of great length. We asked how the road was to be guarded, and what happened in the War I do not know, whether or not we got the oil, but, as I understand from my hon. Friend, that no dividend was paid until quite recently, it rather looks as if during the War we did not get the oil we thought we were going to get. That is an important consideration in considering this Resolution. The Resolution says that
Such further sums, not exceeding in the whole two million and fifty thousand pounds, as are required for the acquisition of share or loan capital.
I have had some little experience of the City, and I have yet to learn—I may be wrong—that the holding of loan capital in a company gives you any voice in the management of that company. Therefore, I would like to know why the words "or loan" are put in? Speaking generally, it is quite a wrong thing for the Government to take shares in any company. It is quite true that years and years ago the late Lord Beaconsfield did take shares in the Suez Canal Company, and that that policy was resisted by the then Liberal Government, and especially by Mr. Gladstone, but that that resistance was wrong, that, in the first place, the acquisition of those shares was commercially a very successful operation, and secondly, it led to the control of a great country on our road to India. That was a very exceptional case, and I do not think it ought to be quoted as a precedent. This is merely a case in which the Government goes into partnership with certain very estimable people—I am sure I do not know who they are—who have invested their money in a legitimate undertaking—the discovery of oil in Persia.
I venture to say that if the Government are continually going to invest money in undertakings of this sort, the result will be that the Government will become shareholders in all kinds of companies. I do not think that is a policy to be followed. I think it is inevitable—I have often said so in this House—that when once we begin investing money in anything, or authorising the expenditure of money, we are always told at the beginning that all that is necessary is a certain sum that is going to do wonders, but after a certain number of years we are told that the sum is not sufficient, and that in order to retain our interest we must go wrong again, and invest a certain amount more. That is exactly what has happened in this case, and I should like to know whether this is the limit, or how much more money is going to be expended in the acquisition of share capital in this company?
Supposing this company is a great success, it may be that it will necessitate a very large additional expenditure of capital. Surely that ought to be a matter for private enterprise, and not for the Government. Having originally subscribed a certain amount of money which had the effect of starting the company, would it not be better to say, "Very well, we have started this company; it
has paid us 10 per cent. free of Income Tax"—I do not know whether the Government pay Income Tax on their own undertakings, but it has paid 10 per cent., which is not a bad investment, although it will not bring the Government under the Profiteeripg Act—"We have started this company on the way, and have received a very fair return on our investment, and we will now leave the company." Personally, I think it would be the right course. But if my hon. Friend will give me some explanation why "loan" is included in the Resolution—because I do not think anyone in the House will question my statement when I say that the acquisition of loan capital does not give you any control over the company—if he will give me some explanation of that, and if my Noble Friend (Lord E. Talbot) will give me some undertaking that the Second Reading of this Bill will be taken at a normal hour, then possibly we may not persist in our objection at the present moment.

Sir J. D. REES: It has escaped my right hon. Friend, who is so keen a man of busines, that this is the very best investment any British Government has made. Neither has my hon. Friend, who dealt with the case in a short speech, pointed out the enormous appreciation of capital value of the £2,000,000 which the British Government invested.

Sir F. BANBURY: My objection is to the principle. I do not think that it makes it right for the Government to speculate because they have made a good speculation. My objection is to the Government entering into a private enterprise or mixing themselves up with a private enterprise and whether a profit or loss is made does not enter into the consideration of the question. It is a question of principle, and not of money.

Sir J. D. REES: But my right hon. Friend would prefer, if the Government made a speculation, that it should be a good speculation; and that it is. But I submit this was not a speculation. I remember what happened in 1914 very well. The question then was the supply of fuel for the Navy—a great Imperial question. It was not a money speculation, but if in the course of action taken for the British Navy, and for a great Imperial purpose, the Government also happens to make a large profit, which is extremely unlike most of the operations originating in this House, it does not
seem to me to be a great additional reason for reproving the action they then took, because the British taxpayer has gained largely by this operation. I confess it is rarely that one sees in this House any operation in which the British taxpayer is exposed to any other fate than being ground down to powder and bled white. These are extremely relevant facts. There is also the fact that my right hon. Friend left entirely out of consideration that this investment gives the British Government a prepondering influence in Persia. Apart from the trade of Persia, this is a most important link between the Mother country and our Indian Empire.
The right hon. Baronet referred to the words "loan capital." I understand this simply refers to the fact of an issue of debentures as well as share capital. If the Government did not take their share of the new issue they would lose that preponderating control which they now have, to the detriment of the British taxpayer. I happen to know, as one with a lifelong interest in Persia, that there was oil got there before and during the War. The damage done to the pipe-lines by the nomadic tribes in Persia was not, I believe, an extremely serious matter. The prospective cost of putting the matter right is between £300,000 and £400,000, which will most likely be recovered from the Persian Government. The right hon. Gentleman said if this was not a success there might be a further issue of capital. There was never a greater success. The capital of the association is enormous. The interest paid now is very large. If the Government had not put up the amount with which the Resolution deals they would have lost that position they have gained in this enterprise which the British Government has never gained in any other commercial concern in the world. This is a far better investment for the British taxpayer than was that of Lord Beaconsfield in the Suez Canal. The right hon. Baronet also overlooked the fact that there is one of the most able business men in the country representing the Government upon this Board—Lord Inchcape. It is extremely improbable that the interests of the British taxpayer and of the British Government will not receive complete justice in such competent hands.

Colonel GRETTON: I was one of those who opposed this Resolution in 1914, because in those days the whole position was speculative in the highest degree. The
situation has altered completely. The Persian oilfield, I understand, is situated on the frontier between Persia and the old Empire of Turkey, in a sort of no man's land, where neither Power held any real control over the population.

Sir J. D. REES: This is in Persia.

Colonel GRETTON: It is quite true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that this is in Persia, or on the Persian side of the frontier. But in one of the parts of the country the pipe-line of some hundreds of miles has been at the mercy of the tribes whom no power controls. The Persian oilfield ought to extend into Mesopotamia, so that one Power at any rate should have control over an oilfield of great potentiality, and quite free from the dangers existing on the Persian side of the frontier. The Government should retain British influence on the Turkish side of the oilfield. This is really a question of high policy. The British Navy may in the future depend very largely on oil fuel and clearly we must have a larger measure of control to secure a supply for the Navy. I think we might consent to pass this Resolution and afterwards examine this question more closely on the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: This is an investment of over £2,000,000 and it is one which entails an insurance afterwards in the way of advances to Persia this year of £2,068,000, and therefore we have to consider this amount and take into account the sum spent in protecting those rights. This policy in Persia may lead to a vicious circle, but that question may be discussed on the Bill. I should like to know whether this measure is likely to be a preliminary to a further investment in oil interests or whether anything of this sort is contemplated?

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: What class of shares is it intended to take up?

Mr. BALDWIN: Ordinary.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the business has extended very considerably? Is it the same undertaking? Is the Anglo-Persian Oil Company exploring in other new fields or sticking to the undertaking which they originally acquired?

Mr. ACLAND: Before we pass this Resolution I must enter a caveat on one
point. It does not seem quite fair that as matter of principle when we have put money into a concern for some great Imperial necessity, as was the case in 1914, to make sure of a certain supply of oil, that we should be compelled for all future time, as the company expands its capital, to acquire a larger amount in order to keep our balance of control over the operations of the company. I do not think that principle ought to be admitted.

Mr. BALDWIN: With reference to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) has just said, of course in this matter we are merely following the policy of the Government of which he was a very distinguished member, and on future occasions when the Government of the day may think it desirable in the event of further extensions of capital they will have to get the consent of Parliament just as we are getting it today. Hon. Members will see that the sum in the Resolution is strictly limited to £2,050,000. In answer to the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Williams), and the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), I may say that the £2,050,000 is for ordinary shares only. When any right hon. Friend asks me what is the meaning of "loan" capital in the connection in which the word is used, I must tell him that I am not a draftsman, and I never do understand draftsmen's phrases. I have no idea why the word is put in except that it occurs in the 1914 Act. If it should turn out to be unnecessary, I shall have no objection to taking it out.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged.

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think, with regard to what the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton (Lieut.-Colonel Malone) has said, that there is any connection between the investments that the Government have made in this company and the money being spent in pursuance of quite other matters. The hon. and gallant Member also asked me about amalgamations and the policy of the company. I am afraid that I have no knowledge at all on those subjects. Whatever may be contemplated at any time as regards the policy of this company it must always be remembered that we have the controlling interest and have two representatives of the British Government on the Board. The directors are Lord Inchcape and Sir Frederick Black. As to the time when the Second Reading of the Bill will be taken, I think I am in a position to give an assurance that it will be
taken when most of the Members of the House are about. Probably, it will be tomorrow.

Sir F. BANBURY: Only one stage in one day?

Mr. BALDWIN: Certainly, one stage in one day. I do express my regret that, owing to the exigencies of the situation, we have to push this Bill on, but we are near the end of the Session, and it is essential that the Royal Assent should be obtained to it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the said Resolution, and that Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Baldwin do prepare and bring it in.
ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY [CAPITAL ACQUISITION] BILL—"to amend the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (Acquisition of Capital) Act, 1914," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 239.]

Orders of the Day — COUNTY AND BOROUGH POLICE BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir F. BANBURY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of 22 and.23 Vict. c. 32 s.4.)

Section four of the County and Borough Police Act, 1859 (which relates to penalties for resignation or withdrawal from duty of police without notice), shall have effect, and shall, as from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and nineteen, be deemed to have had effect as if for the word "forfeited" there were substituted the words "liable to be forfeited.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Captain W. BENN: I hope we shall have some explanation of this Clause. It appears to be retrospective in its action.

Major BAIRD: The Bill is very simple. Under the Act of 1859 if a man resigns or withdraws himself from duty without leave or the notice required, he has to forfeit any claim to pay which he has earned but as not received. This Bill makes it possible for certain boroughs and counties to pay over to men who have so resigned or withdrawn from duty any such outstanding pay. It is brought in specially to meet a few isolated cases.

Captain BENN: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the explanation. I take it the Bill has reference to cases of disputes with the police which took place recently.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[SIR F. BANBURY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of Dogs' Licence Duty.)

The Licence Duty payable for a dog licence under the Dogs Regulation (Ireland) Act, 1866 (in this Act referred to as the "principal Act"), shall be at such rate, not exceeding six shillings for each dog, as may be prescribed by Regulations of the Lord Lieutenant under this Act.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): I beg to move, to leave out all the words after "at" ["shall be at"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the rate of four shillings instead of two shillings for each dog."
The object of this short Bill is to meet representations which have been made to the Irish Government by philanthropists and representatives of the agricultural community from all parts of Ireland. It proposes to raise the tax from 2s. to 4s. In England the tax is 7s. 6d. In the Bill we had provided for power to raise it to 6s., but representations were made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. MacVeagh) and others, a I agreed to accept the sum of 4s.—hence my Amendment. It was in 1865 that Sir Robert Peel, then Chief Secretary for Ireland, introduced a Bill to put this tax on for the first time in Ireland, and the receipts went in payment of the Petty Sessions clerks who acted as collectors first, the balance going to the local authorities. No change is now proposed in that respect. I may explain that representations came to us from the General Council of Agriculture because of the considerable losses inflicted on farmers by sheep and lamb worrying; they also came from county councils and other bodies, and I think it will be admitted that it is a most unreasonable fax.

Mr. EDWARD KELLY: It would have been impossible, Sir, to choose a Chairman who would be more opposed to increasing the burdens on the owners of dogs and on the dogs themselves, than
yourself. I have watched you with great interest from the commencement of the Attorney-General's remarks, and I have failed to see the slightest gleam of sympathy from your eyes, or the slightest sign that you had any sympathy with the additional burden which was to be imposed, not only on the dogs, but on the owners of the dogs. When I fail to find that sympathy from you shall I look for it from any of those hon. Members who, again and again have opposed you in some of your most cherished schemes for the amelioration of the lot of our canine friends? Therefore I give it up as a bad job. I had an Amendment under which I hoped to confine the duty on Irish dogs to 2s. 7d., but I have come to the conclusion that our dogs, like everything else, are going to cost us more, and that we might as well make the best of a bad job and get off as lightly as we can. I am the more reconciled to accepting the Amendment of the Attorney-General when he explains that it is necessary for us in Ireland to keep dogs in order to pay our Petty Sessions clerks. That is an anomaly equalled only by another anomaly by which an Irishman had to drink a lot of Irish whisky in order to pay for secondary education. As the force of all those arguments oppresses me so strongly, and the Attorney-General has such a persuasive way, it is really very hard to oppose any Amendment or proposal he makes to the Committee. Therefore I shall not move my Amendment.

Mr. LYNN: If the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Kelly) had arranged to bring the dogs over here to keep us awake, I would join with him in keeping the tax at 2s., but, as he cannot do that, I must support the Attorney-General, as the tax is not by any means exorbitant.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 (Amendment of Sections 6 and 20 of Principal Act as to the Taking Out and Duration of Licences,) 3 (Regulations), and 4 (Interpretation, Construction, and Citation) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Salaries of Petty Sessions Clerks, etc.)

The power of the Lord Lieutenant to fix the amount of the salaries to be paid to Petty Sessions clerks as defined in the Petty Sessions Clerks (Ireland) Act, 1681, shall include power to Brant increases of salaries to take effect for such time and to be reckoned for superannua-
tion purposes in such circumstances and to such extent only as may be directed by the Lord Lieutenant, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section one or Section five of the said Act.—[Mr. Henry.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. HENRY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
We have in Ireland a number of very deserving Gentlemen known as Petty Sessions clerks, who correspond to the clerks of justices in England. They have very small salaries, and it is desired to give them a larger salary, but, owing to the fact that there is a provision in an Act of Parliament of 1881 that if you once raise their salaries you can never reduce them it is impossible to give them a bonus unless it becomes permanent, and my Clause will enable the Lord Lieutenant to give them a bonus, and if we arrive at happier times they will come back to the old salary.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause, accordingly read a second time, and added to the Bill.
Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Powers of County Councils to Adopt the Public Libraries Acts.)

(1) The council of any county in England or Wales shall have power by resolution specifying the area to which the resolution extends to adopt the Public Libraries Acts for the whole or any part of their county, exclusive of any part of the county which is an existing library area within the meaning of this Act, as if the area specified in the resolution were a library district for the purposes of those Acts.
(2) Where any resolution is passed by the council of a county under this Section the Public Libraries Acts shall, as respects the area specified in the resolution, be carried into execution by the council as the library authority of the area, and, subject to the provisions of this Act, the power to adopt those Acts for any district comprised in that area, being a library district within the meaning of the Public Libraries Act, 1892, shall cease.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir F. BANBURY: I should like some explanation of this Clause. It empowers the council of any county in England
or Wales—I do not quite know why Ireland is left out — to adopt the Public Libraries Act for the whole or any part of the county. Why is it necessary to take them from the existing authorities and take them under their own protection?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. H. Lewis): The right hon. Baronet has not observed that the terms of the Bill expressly include existing library authorities, therefore if there is any library authority in being now it is entitled to remain for the future as an independent authority. The reason why these powers have been given to county authorities is partly because the Carnegie trustees, who have in their hands a very large sum of money, for the purpose of establishing rural libraries, commenced their work in certain counties by establishing libraries at their own expense, and undertaking to maintain them for a period of, I think, three or five years, as the case may be. It is doubtful whether at the present time the county authority has the power to give an undertaking to carry on these libraries. I feel sure the Committee would desire that the work of the Carnegie trustees should be encouraged in this respect, and that life in our villages should be made a little more interesting by the supply of books, both for children and adults. The scheme is worked very cheaply. I trust the right hon. Baronet will not object to the county authority having this power.

Sir J. D. REES: Does this transfer of power connote any power for raising further rates? Is it a fact that any participation in Carnegie money makes necessary an imposition of some rate upon the already overburdened ratepayers?

Mr. LYNN: My right hon. Friend raised the question why Ireland is left out, and the hon. Member has not replied to that point. Why is Ireland left out? Does the hon. Gentleman imagine that because we are so intelligent in Ireland we do not need libraries?

Sir J. BUTCHER: What would be the effect of this Bill on the rural authorities? In some of them there are already reading rooms, and very valuable places they are. As the hon. Member probably knows, there is often difficulty in getting suitable supplies of books. Will this Bill enable the county council to supply addi-
tional books for the reading rooms, and in cases where there is no reading room will any provision be made by this Bill for erecting or equipping these rooms?

Mr. LEWIS: This would enable the county authority to establish a central depot from which books may be provided for the various centres in the county. Under the Carnegie scheme the elementary schools are very largely used for the purpose both for children and adults. The hon. Member (Mr. Lynn) asked why the Bill did not apply to Ireland, and suggested that I had some low opinion of the intelligence of his fellow countrymen. That is not the case. I regard them as the most quick-witted race in the world; but I cannot venture in this Bill to touch Ireland, because it is introduced by the Board of Education for England and Wales, which has no jurisdiction over Ireland. The hon. Baronet (Sir J. D. Rees) asked whether there will be an addition to the rates in consequence of this Bill. This Bill throughout is an enabling Bill. No authority need adopt it unless they wish to do so. Every county authority is, of course, responsible to its own ratepayers, and it will make itself responsible for a certain amount of expenditure.

Sir F. BANBURY: We will deal with the question of expense on Clause 4, which is a very important Clause. Clause 1 is to allow the council of any county in England or Wales to establish public libraries in addition to the public libraries already established by other public library authorities. The reason given for this is that the Carnegie Trust has spent a certain amount of money. It is another example of the evil of giving a certain amount of money. As soon as you have got a little you want more. When you bring in a Bill like the Anglo-Persian Oil Bill asking for a certain amount of money you are going to spend a lot more money. I do not see why at this particular period in our history we should be going in for spending additional money. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this will enable people to read books. What sort of books? My experience is that public libraries are places where, if the weather is cold, people go in and sit down and get warm, while other people go in to read novels. I do not believe, speaking generally, that public libraries have done any good. On the contrary, they have done a great deal of harm, because the books read, as far as my in
formation goes, are chiefly sensational novels, which do no good to anybody. Except for spending public money, I do not see any object in this Bill. It would be very much better if the Government would wait until we are in a better financial position. I will deal with the financial aspect when we come to Clause 4.

Mr. R. RICHAROSON: I was extremely glad to hear the hon. Gentleman refer in connection with this Bill to our elementary school life. I heard with delight the fact that there is some system of giving books to the young children in our elementary schools. I agree with my right hon. Friend that up to the present public libraries have not been a success in our rural areas. We want to give our young pupils in the elementary schools good books to read, so that when they leave school they will have a taste for good books, which they cannot have when reading the same old type of books from the age of ten to fourteen. We want to do the best we can to make the people of this country a thinking people, because the coming nation will be a nation of thinkers, and I want to give the children a chance of being better equipped than they were in my time. I believe that by means of the proposals of this Bill we shall build up a better race of people than England has hitherto known.

Mr. RAFFAN: I want to remove what I think is a misapprehension in the mind of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). He fears that under this Bill there might be a duplication of libraries. As I understand the Bill, the county council would make provision in areas which are not already provided for, and there would be no duplication. What the Bill does is to give the power to make provision in rural areas exactly to the same extent as provision is made in urban areas at present. At the moment the rateable value in rural districts is so small that it would be impossible for the rural councils and the parish councils to maintain a library, but by this unification of the work of the whole county it would be possible to place these districts in the same position as the urban districts. If that is the object, it ought to secure universal approval. If we desire to make rural life more attractive there ought to be greater opportunities of reading. I heard with pleasure the speech of the last speaker. Will he allow me to say this, that I hope that provision will be made in the rural districts, as in the towns, for good healthy fiction and litera-
ture of a kind which is more for the purpose of entertainmern than for ordinary education. After all, I think that the large numbers of works of fiction which go out from the public libraries have done a great great deal to brighten the lives of the people. While I sympathise heartily with every effort for increasing education, I hope there will he no effort to crowd out works of that kind. I hope that no attempt will be made to concentrate merely upon the provision of scientific works and books of that kind.

Mr. D. HERBERT: I extend an invitation to the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) to visit the public library in my own Constituency, where, in spite of the fact that owing to the scarcity of fuel there is not very much chance of getting warm, he will find the place occupied night after night by young men who are studying technical books. They are young men training themselves after the War for the work they are hoping to take up. That library, I believe, is typical of the public libraries in many of our growing industrial towns, where the demand for really useful technical works for adults is very great. There is a large demand for Parliamentary papers, and I have no doubt they read, to the great benefit of the people of that Constituency, many of the speeches of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. CAIRNS: When I was at home we had no books, and we had to get them at the village institute. We read histories and other books. It is a good thing to sit by the fire and smoke, and better still to take a book away; such as a history, to fit us to come to such places as this.

Mr. LYNN: I think the speech of the right hon. Baronet is a strong speech in favour of libraries, because for want of training people read rubbish instead of the real sort. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke of the immense value of libraries in rural districts. In the city you can easily get books, but not in the rural districts. I think it is an enormous advantage in rural districts in England or Ireland to have plenty of good books, especially in the winter evenings. I am strongly in favour of any movement which will give people more to read, especially in the form of fiction, whether Parliamentary or other fiction.

Mr. R. McLAREN: I entirely disagree with the right hon. Baronet. In my town we claim to be the first town in the three Kingdoms to inaugurate the library and
put on a, penny rate for that purpose, and it has done a great deal of good to the whole community. When I was a boy I was glad to go there and get a book and take it home and read it, such as Scott and Dickens and Thackeray, and some of the heavy books which some people to-day discard. I think it is a good thing to have a Bill extending libraries, and that it is well that boys are not content to sit doing nothing. I am glad boys are beginning to fit themselves to take the places of those who have gone before them. It is necessary they should have good books. I strongly support this Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clauses 2 (Arrangements between Existing Library Authorities and County Councils) and 3 (Reference and Delegation of Library Powers to Education Committees) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Provision us to Expenses and Audit, 55 and 56 Act. c. 53.)

(1) Section two of the Public Libraries Act, 1892 (which imposes limitations on the amount of the rate winch may be levied for the purposes of that Act) shall cease to have effect, and where the expenses incurred by any library authority for the purposes of the Public Libraries Acts during the financial year current at the commencement of this Act exceed the amount produced by the maximum rate which the authority have power to levy for the purposes of those Acts, no part of those expenses shall be open to objection on the audit of the accounts of the authority on the ground that the statutory limitation on expenditure has been exceeded, if and in so far as the expenses were in the opinion of the Ministry of health reasonably incurred:
Provided that if the library authority of any library district, either at the time when the Public Libraries Acts are adopted for the district or at any subsequent One, by resolution declare that the rate to be levied for the purposes of those Acts in the district or any specified portion of the district in any one financial year shall not exceed such sum in the pound as may be specified, the power to raise a rate for the purpose of those Acts in that district shall be limited accordingly, and any such resolution shall not be rescinded until the expiration of twelve months from the date on which it was passed.
(2) Any expenses incurred by the council of a county under the Public Libraries Acts shall be defrayed out of the county fund, and the council may if they think fit, after giving reasonable notice to the overseers of the parish or parishes concerned, and in the case of an area situate within a borough or urban district, after consultation with the council of the borough or urban district, charge any expenses incurred by them under those Acts on any parish or parishes which in the opinion of the council of the county are served by any institution which has been provided or is being maintained by that council under those Acts:
Provided that the council of a county shall not charge any expenses so incurred on any parish or parishes within an existing library district without the concurrence of the library authority of that district.
(3) The accounts of the receipts and expenditure under the Public Libraries Acts of the council of a county shall be audited in manner provided by Section seventy-one of the Local Government Act, 1888.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir F. BANBURY: This is a most extraordinary Clause. First of all it will appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees), because it abolishes the penny rate and allows any rate to be imposed for the purpose of a public library. That is a very wrong thing to do at the present moment. Not only are we groaning under the burden of enormous taxation, but every time those of us who are unfortunately ratepayers receive a demand note, as I did only two days ago, we find that the rates are increased enormously. In the part of the country in which I have the misfortune to live, there has been an increase of something like 25 per cent. in my rates during the last year, and now there are to be further increases in order to enable certain hon. Gentlemen to read Dickens and Thackeray and other interesting books. I do not doubt it is a very good thing to do, and I hope when they took them away they always returned them, but there are a good many things which we should all like to do but which we are not able to do in these days, when there is very little money in the country and when we have an extremely extravagant Government. Therefore, I object strongly to this Clause, which does away with the limit of a penny rate. It may be all right that the county councils, in addition to the existing authorities, should have power to levy a rate, but that that rate should be increased beyond a penny is, I think, extremely wrong, and I hope there are sufficient economists left in the House to back me up in that particular matter and to reject this Clause. It is a most extraordinary Clause, and I cannot understand what can have happened to the draftsman or the Department of the Government which is supposed to be responsible for this Bill. All through this Bill the Education Department is the Department concerned, but when we come to Clause 4 we find a limitation of the penny rate abolished, and the only limitation is this: "In so far as the expenses
were in the opinion of the Ministry of Health reasonably incurred." What on earth has the Minister of Health got to do with it, unless it is that my statement that the libraries were in many cases used in the cold weather by people who wanted to go in and get warm is correct, and that the Minister of Health, thinking that a good thing, has introduced this Bill so that a large sum of money may be spent in conducing to the health of the particular people who are likely to use the libraries?

Mr. RAFFAN: He takes the place of the President of the Local Government Board.

Sir F. BANBURY: Does he? I do not know; I am so confused with all these various new departments and officials, but after all, this is a question for the Education Department, and surely it should be left to them to say whether or not in their opinion the expenditure of money is likely to increase the education of the country. What has the Ministry of Health got to do with it? I do not think the Local Government Board has been absolutely abolished, has it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I am sorry to hear it, because the introduction of the Ministry of Health into this Bill would lead me to suppose—in fact, I am quite certain—with the predilections of the right hon. Gentleman who is the head of the Ministry of Health that economy does not in the least matter. He has not any idea of economy. He sees something which he thinks is good and is prepared to spend any money on it, and not always with success. He sometimes has to abandon a Bill which he has brought in—no doubt for excellent purposes—and has to introduce another Bill to do that for which the first was framed. Therefore, if you are going to bring in this right hon. Gentleman to exercise economy and business principles over a county authority, I think you are-going to fail grievously, and I would much prefer my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench as the authority to decide whether or not the proper amount of money is being expended in this way. But I do hope the Government will consider whether it is advisable at this particular moment to give a blank cheque to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. LEWIS: My right hon. Friend has failed to observe, I think, that the first paragraph of Clause 4 is divided into two portions, the first dealing with the abolition of the limitation upon the amount of the rate, and the second dealing with the expenses which are incurred by any library
authority "during the financial year current at the commencement of this Act." The fact is that during the current financial year library authorities have found it almost impossible to carry on, and there are certain library authorities who, unless they are to close branch libraries in all directions, will be obliged to exceed their expenses for the current year. The proper authority for audit in a matter of that kind is the successor to the functions of the Local Government Board, namely, the Ministry of Health. My right hon. Friend has asked why the limitation should be abolished. I will give him the reason. From all parts of the country we have been receiving the most urgent appeals on behalf of the local authorities who are themselves responsible to the ratepayers for the abolition of this limit. As a matter of fact, the men in their employ can hardly live at the present time. I feel sure my right hon. Friend, having regard to the increased cost of living, would agree that these men are entitled to some advance on their salaries. War bonuses in some cases have not been paid to these men, and they have had the mortification of seeing their colleagues in the same municipal offices receiving one bonus after another, whereas, owing to the limitation of the 1d. rate, it has been quite impossible to give them any increase. I am sure my right hon. Friend is a. man of humanity and would desire to see these men treated fairly. At the same time, there are libraries all over the country which are not able to order any new books at the present time so circumscribed are their powers. It has been felt by the local authorities throughout the country that the time has arrived for the abolition of this limitation. They cannot go on otherwise.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman to ask where is the ratepayer to get the money from? That seems to be forgotten by all those people who are anxious to do philanthropic work with other people's money. The ratepayer is in just as bad a position as these people in the library who have not got the increase of salary that they think they ought to have.

Mr. LEWIS: It is for the local authorities to judge, for they are responsible to the ratepayers. Surely we cannot leave these men to starve under the conditions to which reference has been made? This
is their life's work. Under all the circumstances, it is absolutely necessary to take this action.

Sir J. D. REES: I feel it my duty to rise and say that the very points that, occurred to my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) occurred to me. My right hon. Friend on the Front Bench says that the libraries find it difficult to carry on. The ratepayers find it difficult to carry on, too! The ratepayer has two pockets; out of one he pays rates, out of the other taxes. Between the two operations his pockets are very nearly empty. My right hon. Friend refers to the humanity of the thing. Why is he not equally humane to the larger number as to the exceptional few who draw salaries at these libraries? He says they cannot live. How many ratepayers find it difficult to live? The position of the taxpayer and the ratepayer really seems to me to be overlooked by educational authorities; and I cannot but deplore that, following upon grants to Serbian youths, and to certain officers for education at Oxford and Cambridge out of the taxes, we should here have proposed the abolition of the penny rate, and the giving to the local authorities of these extended powers to add more weight to the already crushing burden imposed on the taxpayer.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I am entirely in sympathy with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman up to a certain point. But I quite agree the penny rate is insufficient. Is that, however, really a reason for the abolition of the limitation? To entirely remove the limit at this late hour and in a small House is really a strong order. The right hon. Gentleman says that the ratepayers can bring the local authorities to book. We all know that the control exercised by the ratepayers over the spending of the local authorities is very small. The case is analogous to this House, where, I am afraid, we indulge in some expenditure that the electors look upon with great disfavour. Therefore, I would really suggest to my right hon. Friend that while he is perfectly right in removing the penny limit it is not right, indeed it is rather dangerous, to leave absolutely unlimited discretion to the local authorities as to the amount that they spend on the libraries. In saying that I must not be understood not to have sympathy with the reading public. It is absolutely necessary that you should provide literature for the public; though, as regards what has been said
to-night, I do not feel that it is necessary to place in the hands of the public some of the modern novels presented to them. I have inquired in various places as to the books that are read by the public, and a great many of the modern novels are perfectly worthless rubbish. If they would read the works of Dickens, Scott, Jane Austen, and the older novels, well and good, but some of the rubbish I refer to is not only immoral, but perfectly useless. I would earnestly beg the right hon. Gentleman to put some limitation upon the spending powers of the local authorities.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I trust what has been said will not delay the passing of this Bill, because—
Notice taken that forty, Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present—

Mr. SMITH (resuming): I hope nothing will be done to-night to prevent the possibility of this Bill going through. It has been suggested that our public libraries are more or less useless institutions which have failed to serve the purposes for which they were created. As a member of a local authority, it has been a most agreeable surprise to me when the report of the library committee has been presented to see how much the library has been appreciated and also the good class of literature that has been read. It is not correct to say that the libraries are being used merely for the reading of novels, because I know that scientific and historical works are in great demand, and it would be lamentable just at the time when we have developed this taste in our young people to do anything to unduly limit these facilities. These matters are always in the hands of the ratepayers. The elections in boroughs are annual, and there are ample opportunities of checking public expenditure, and if the local expenditure exceeds a reasonable limit the electors always have the means of checking it. I think it would be a great pity if the library movement were restricted in any way.

Sir F. BANBURY: The idea that the ratepayers have any control in this matter is absurd, because the vast majority of them do not pay rates and do not care what the expenditure reaches. The people
who are interested are so small in number that they do not exercise any check at all upon local expenditure. In the large towns the majority of the electors, as they do not pay rates, are not affected by the extravagance, in fact they encourage local authorities in their extravagance. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Yorkshire is anxious that there should be a limit put to the expenditure. I do not know whether it should be 1½d. or 2d., or what is the right figure, lent I do think that it is absolutely necessary that there should be some limit. I understand that you have put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and therefore it is not possible to move an Amendment at the present time. Would the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill allow this Clause to be negatived in order that on the Report stage an Amendment limiting the amount may be put in? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If he will do that, all opposition to the other stages of the Bill will cease, but, if not, we shall have to divide on the Question. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. LEWIS: If I correctly interpret the general sense of the Committee, they are not in favour of a limitation of that kind. If a limitation of 2d. or 3d. were fixed that very fact very often would be an inducement to an authority to go up to that limit. Therefore, in the interests of economy, it would be an ill-advised thing to fix any limit in the Bill. I trust that the House will accept the Clause.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Power to Rescind Resolutions of County Councils Adopting the Public Libraries Acts.)

(1) council of a county by whom a resolution has been passed under this Act adopting the Public Libraries Acts may, if they think it advisable so to do with a view to the better carrying into effect of those Acts in any district, apply to the Board for an Order rescinding the resolution as respects that district, and the Board may on any such application, if they think fit, make an Order accordingly, and thereupon the Public Libraries Acts shall as respects that district have effect as from the date specified in that behalf in the Order as though the resolution had not been passed.
(2) Any Order made under this Section may contain such consequential and supplemental provisions with respect to the transfer of any property or rights acquired or liabilities incurred under the Public Libraries Acts from the council of the county to the library authority of the district concerned as the Board think fit.
1781
(3) In this Section the expression "district" means, as the case requires, either a library district or a district which would have been a library district if a resolution adopting the Public Libraries Acts had not been passed under this Act by the council of the county.

Major BARNES: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words
No such liability shall be transferred to such last-mentioned library authority without their consent.

Mr. LEWIS: I am quite ready to accept the Amendment on the understanding that those in charge of the Bill are at liberty to put it, perhaps, in a slightly altered form.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 6 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported.
As amended, considered.

Sir F. BANBURY: I must protest against taking all stages of Bills at this late hour. It is now a quarter to twelve, and I submit it is intolerable this kind of thing should go on. The House of Commons sat all through last night until six this morning, and now, in this small House, after considerable discussion on a very important Bill, the Government are forcing a number of measures through. A large number of hon. Members did not expect what occurred at six or seven this evening, and under the circumstances I hope this Bill will not be proceeded with further. If it is, I shall be forced to move to amend Clause 4. I do appeal to the Government representatives—I do not see a Cabinet Minister on the Front Bench—not to persist in a policy which, while it may have been justifiable in time of war, is certainly perfectly unjustifiable now.

CLAUSE 4.—(Provision as to Expenses and Audit.)

(1) Section two of the Public Libraries Act, 1892 (which imposes limitations on the amount of the rate which may be levied for the purposes of that Act), shall cease to have effect, and where the expenses incurred by any library authority for the purposes of the Public Libraries Acts during the financial year current at the commencement of this Act exceed the amount produced by the maximum rate which the authority have power to levy for the purposes of those Acts, no part of those expenses shall be open to objection on the audit of the accounts of the authority on the ground that the statutory limitation on expenditure has been exceeded, if and in so far as the expenses were in the opinion of the Ministry of Health reasonably incurred:

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "cease to have effect," and to insert instead thereof the words "have effect as if twopence instead of one penny were there inserted."
It is very difficult in the hurry of Debate to put the Amendment in proper form, and I would again ask the Minister in charge of the Bill, in the interests of decency, not to persist in going on with the measure. This is a very important Amendment which is going to affect the whole country, and the right hon. Gentleman surely is not in a position, without consideration, to say exactly what words are necessary and where they should be put in. While I feel I must move the Amendment, I do hope that further progress with the Bill will not be insisted upon. To my mind, the Government are proceeding in an unconstitutional manner in acting as they are doing.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I desire to support the Amendment, not because I am against expenditure on public libraries, but simply because I feel it is proper that some check should be placed upon it. As the right hon. Baronet has said, the ratepayers have very little control over the expenditure of the local authorities. Theoretically they have, but practically they have not. It appears to be a strong measure, after this 1d. rate has been in existence for over twenty years, that we should at this time, in a very thin House and in a way totally unexpected by the great majority of hon. Members, alter fundamentally the principles upon which this rate was originally sanctioned. Go where you will in the country, you hear bitter complaints of the continually increasing rates. They are a tremendous burden especially upon the middle class, the people with fixed incomes or diminishing incomes. Desirable as it may be to promote the study of literature—I fully appreciate what the Parliamentary Secretary says about that—the case ought to be met by increasing the rate to 2d., which would give double the opportunity of providing literature and maintaining the libraries. If there is no limitation, you may have an ambitious and not very wise committee of a council who desire to make a name for themselves under the pretence of encouraging literary pursuits. They may add 3d. or 6d. or more to the rates under this Bill and thereby inflict great hardship on the ratepayers. I beg the right hon. Gentleman
to consider the position of the ratepayers in this matter. While adding a substantial benefit to those who are desirous, and properly desirous, of maintaining the public libraries by increasing the amount of the expenditure on them from a 1d. to a 2d. rate, he should give some protection to the ratepayers whose interests we in this House are bound to protect.

Mr. LEWIS: I would point out that this is an enabling Bill, and that no authority need spend a single penny under it unless it so desires. All over the country hundreds of thousands of authorities have no libraries at the present time. My hon. Friends assume that a larger amount will be spent here, there, and everywhere at once. Thai will not be the case. I would appeal to my hon. Friends not to press this Amendment, for one reason because there are towns in various parts of the country now who, under local Acts, are spending the 2d. rate, and the limitation might be very difficult in these cases. I would also urge upon them the danger of fixing a limit of 2d. or 3d. lest the authorities should be tempted unduly to act up to such a limit. As regards taking the Bill now, the Leader of the House stated at Question-time that it would he taken to-night.

Sir F. BANBURY: Not all its stages.

Mr. LEWIS: Notice was given to a very large House that the Bill would be taken, and everybody, during the whole of the evening, expected it to come on. We have not received a single protest at the Board of Education from anyone against this Bill. I believe that the sense of the House as a whole is strongly in favour of the Bill as it stands. Only one Amendment was put down, and that dealt with a very trivial matter. I trust that my hon. Friends will not press their opposition to what I believe to be the general sense of the House.
Amendment negatived.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at, Five minutes before Twelve o'clock.